PRIVATE BUSINESS

Leicester city council bill

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Liverpool city council bill

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Maidstone borough council bill

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Iran

Ian Austin: What her most recent assessment is of the threat posed to regional security by Iran's nuclear programme.

Margaret Beckett: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you. Iran is undermining the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency through its failure to take the confidence-building measures repeatedly requested of it by the IAEA. In the process, Iran is undermining the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, which remains a cornerstone of international peace and security. Iran's insistence on this approach is raising regional and international tensions and risks destabilising the region.

Ian Austin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate her on her new position. Does she agree that President Ahmadinejad's apparent determination to develop nuclear weapons is made all the more worrying by his sponsorship of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah, his denial of the holocaust, his threat to wipe Israel off the map, and the middle eastern arms race that would result from such development? What is the UK doing to build international support to ensure that that course of action does not take place?

Margaret Beckett: I share the view of my hon. Friend that all the things that he has identified heighten concern about the stance of the Iranian regime. He asks me what the UK is doing. We are part of the EU3, which has been discussing these issues. We are now discussing them with the United States, Russia and China in an attempt to accelerate realisation within Iran that the international community as a whole is united in wishing Iran to return to compliance with what is urged on it by the IAEA. We have been engaged in substantial talks on that—particularly my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute in this respect—and we will continue to be so until, as we hope, success is achieved.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the right hon. Lady accept my good wishes? Is she already learning that diplomats are people who can be disarming, especially when their countries are not? With regard to Iran, will she share with her American colleague the view that while the Americans are right to say that no option, including the military option, can at this stage be taken off the table, they ought also to be more generous in offering to Iran the kind of normalisation that they have felt able to achieve with Libya, in exchange for a full renunciation of nuclear weapons and a uranium enrichment programme?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his good wishes, and also for his advice. Although I may not have been engaged in negotiations in the Foreign Office in the past, I have a certain amount of experience of negotiations at large—

Andrew MacKinlay: Not least in the Labour party.

Margaret Beckett: Particularly, perhaps, in the Labour party.
	Although I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) makes, as part of the discussions to which I have just referred we should try to put together a balanced approach that clearly indicates the danger of sanctions against Iran unless it is prepared to come back into compliance with the will of the international community, but there is also a great deal of discussion about whether it is possible to offer a substantial package of incentives. That balance is important to give Iran a clear choice which it can sensibly, reasonably and viably make.

Doug Henderson: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin) in welcoming my right hon. Friend to her new post. She will be aware that there is considerable concern in the House not only about the potential for nuclear proliferation in Iran, but about some of the likely repercussions of a response to try to deter such proliferation. I am particularly concerned about what the impact might be not only on the middle east generally, but specifically on Iraq, and the need to keep the Shi'ite community on the side of the international parties involved there. Will she discount any military action in Iran unless it is explicitly called for by a United Nations resolution?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes. Everyone must recognise the dangers to the region as a whole of problems in Iran and Iraq. It is clearly not the intention of the international community to take military action, but it is the intention of the international community to encourage Iran to see the nature of the choice that lies before it and to take the choice that is in the interests of the Iranian people.

Paul Keetch: I, too, welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new position and join her in congratulating her predecessor on his role in the EU3. Does she agree that it is odd that in this dispute the two countries most closely concerned, the United States of America and Iran, are not speaking directly to each other? Does she agree with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has suggested that it is possibly time for negotiations between Iran and the United States? Is she prepared to act as a broker in any such negotiations?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and thank him for suggesting that I should put myself right in the middle of difficult and delicate international negotiations. It is clearly for Iran and the United States to decide what dialogue and negotiation should take place between them, and although it is perfectly reasonable for an American politician to comment on that matter, it would not be wise for me to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her appointment and ask her whether she considers that Iran has broken the non-proliferation treaty, and if so, in what way. Is she conducting any direct discussions or negotiations with Iran, which is, after all, the only country in the region that is still a signatory to the NPT; and does she think that the NPT is an important treaty and document?

Margaret Beckett: We take the view that Iran has contravened some of its obligations, but whether or not we take that view matters much less than the fact that the IAEA board has clearly stated that it shares our concern, as has the international community at large. The breach concerns the apparent concealment by Iran of some of its activities. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, but my concern is to encourage Iran to see the nature of the choice that lies before it and to make a choice that will contribute to peace and security in Iran and, indeed, provide Iran with civil nuclear power, if that is what it wants, while also contributing to peace and security in the wider world.

William Hague: I join in the welcome to the Foreign Secretary and congratulate her on her first diplomatic triumph in persuading the Prime Minister that the idea of splitting responsibility for the Foreign Office and creating a Secretary of State for Europe was truly bizarre—the idea had to be abandoned on the day of the reshuffle within about two hours of being embarked upon. After that diplomatic triumph, will she indicate when a formal offer will be made by the EU3 to Iran, and can she tell the House any more about the nature of that offer? Given that the Iranian Government have described the suspension of uranium enrichment as "not on the agenda", if they maintain that position after the receipt of the EU3 offer, will she be prepared to give vocal support to meaningful sanctions against Iran as part of her balanced approach, including a ban on the sale of all military, nuclear and dual-use technology?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. Just as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) gave me good advice about diplomats, he should not believe everything that he reads in the media about the nature of negotiations within the Government. I cannot say much more to him at the moment about the nature of the offer that might be made. Work is continuing and, as I am sure that he will appreciate, the greater the anxiety to make a substantial and worthwhile offer, the more important it is that detailed and careful work is carried out.
	I cannot say much more about the nature of the offer or whether it is likely to come in the next few days, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that thorough work is continuing. Given that what Iran has indicated will be unacceptable, it is clear that Iran is likely to face a stark choice. We all hope that it will not be necessary to move towards sanctions, but if it is necessary to do so, the sanctions will be those that people feel are capable of having an effect. At this point, I no more want to discuss the exact nature of those sanctions than I want to say much more about any formal offer.

Iraq

Paddy Tipping: What discussions she has had with representatives of the Iraqi Government on that Government's new structure.

Margaret Beckett: Earlier today, I spoke to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Dr. Hoshyar Zebari to congratulate him on his reappointment. I will continue the regular and close dialogue with Iraqi leaders established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Paddy Tipping: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary to her new post. I welcome, too, the formation of the first broadly based elected Government in Iraq. It has been a long process. Will she commit to stay with the task, however difficult, until democratic renewal is finally achieved?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his view that it is extremely important that we welcome the formation of a Government of national unity in Iraq and commit ourselves to work with them. Although the conventional wisdom is that it has been a long process—I understand that people would have liked it to be shorter—I would point out that there was initially the period of election verification, and then the period of coalition building. Considering that the Iraqis have no experience of this kind of democracy at all, compared with what has happened in other nation states with rather more experience, we should perhaps be congratulating them on their speed.

Alex Salmond: I welcome the Foreign Secretary to her post. Is the four-year timetable for the withdrawal of the significant presence of UK troops from Iraq an official position; how exactly did it emerge yesterday; and, if it is not the official position, what is the timetable for withdrawal?

Margaret Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. What has been said very clearly about the potential for withdrawal is that it is hoped to move towards Iraqi control of particular cities and provinces. A process of assessment is now under way, and we expect the report from that quite soon. It would be what I might call a conditional process, in the sense that it would depend on what the conditions were assessed as being in those cities and provinces and whether the Iraqis were able to take control of the security situation there, which would be a precursor to troops being withdrawn. As he will appreciate, it is potentially a step-by-step process. I am not going to attempt to put a timetable on it. The process has not yet begun. We hope that it will be able to begin soon, because that will demonstrate how Iraq is moving to a more peaceful position.

Michael Moore: I join the many others who have congratulated the Foreign Secretary on her new position and wish her every success in her new role. A quick glance at today's Order Paper shows that she has quite a bit to be getting on with.
	Yesterday, the new Iraqi Prime Minister said very clearly, in public:
	"There is an agreement for the transfer of security under a timetable which starts in June."
	He indicated that by the end of this year most provinces will be under Iraqi control. Is there an agreed timetable, or are there even agreed criteria, for the transfer of security responsibilities? When will we get a chance to have a detailed strategy for Iraq from the Government which we can debate in this House?

Margaret Beckett: The remarks made yesterday by the Iraqi Prime Minister about June refer to the process of assessment that I mentioned a moment ago. We expect the report of the assessment committee in June, and it is certainly hoped that that will allow us to begin to transfer some provinces and cities. The hon. Gentleman will know, I hope, that our own Prime Minister has pointed out that it is an objective timetable. It is hoped that it will be a step-by-step process, but it will depend on the position in those cities and provinces. Of course, people can express all kinds of hopes for the speed with which the process will continue, but it will be, I hope, a measured speed based on conditions on the ground, not on some artificial timetable.

EU Constitution

David Gauke: What the Government's policy is on pursuing ratification of the EU constitution.

Geoff Hoon: The Government have made it clear that the constitutional treaty will be ratified in the UK only after a referendum. However, following the rejection of the treaty in the Dutch and French referendums, the European Council agreed on a period of reflection to consider the way forward. The European Council will come back to the matter this June. We will participate constructively in these discussions.

David Gauke: First, I wish the Minister for Europe well in his post. I do not know whether congratulations are in order, but I certainly wish him well.
	Given that, in recent weeks, the German Chancellor, the Italian Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have said that there may yet be life in the European constitution, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is time to make it clear that the British Government oppose trying to reawaken it and that we will not support its integrationist policies and objectives, such as giving more powers to European institutions over criminal justice?

Geoff Hoon: The Government have made it clear that they will participate effectively in any discussions on the future of the treaty. As I have seen in my first 10 days back in the job, there is a range of views throughout the European Union about the best way forward. It is sensible to consider them and to discuss with our partners an appropriate way forward. We should not make early decisions—we are not doing that, and it is right and proper, in the best interests of this country, to remain fully engaged in those conversations with our European partners.

Keith Vaz: I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Foreign Office as Minister for Europe. He obviously did the job so well last time that the Prime Minister had to have him back. As he knows, last week, the EU published a report, which showed that Bulgaria and Romania were generally on track to join the EU in January next year. Given that the EU's rules and regulations were designed for the EU at 15 and that the constitution was designed to update its efficiency, does he agree that it is important that those elements of the constitution that can be taken forward with our colleagues and will result in a more efficient and effective EU should be effected before other steps are taken to ratify it?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes. I am delighted that I made such an impact in the two short months when I did the job previously. He is characteristically modest in refraining from adding that he succeeded me in the position and that whatever work I was able to do was clearly overshadowed by his contribution.
	My hon. Friend is right that the process of enlargement has necessarily led in the past to institutional change. It is perhaps stating the obvious that, as the EU has grown, it has been necessary to adjust the way in which decisions are made to reflect the new reality. However, as I said earlier, it is important at this stage to continue to hold conversations with our European partners so that we are not isolated and to ensure that the voice of Britain is heard at those discussions. That is the position that the Government will take.

Graham Brady: With several member states working towards reviving the EU constitution at next month's summit, it appears increasingly likely that the British Government, owing to their failure to show leadership, may, for a second time, be pushed into accepting a constitution that they do not want. Does the Minister agree that it would save everyone a great deal of confusion and wasted effort if he said emphatically today that Britain will not accept the EU constitution or any of the increased powers in it? If the Government are again swept along by those who want an integrated Europe, will he guarantee that this country has a referendum before any further transfer of powers to the EU?

Geoff Hoon: I have made the position on the European treaty absolutely clear. I repeat that the Government have said that the constitutional treaty will be ratified in the United Kingdom only after a referendum.
	On leadership and isolation, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that, in the course of my various conversations in the past 10 days, I have met a range of leaders from the Christian Democrats—hitherto allies of the Conservative party—and, if any political party is isolated in Europe today, it is the Conservative party. I have received several complaints from Christian Democrats who clearly believe that I have some influence with the Conservative party—I had to tell them that I did not. The Conservative party is leaderless on Europe and has drifted well to the right.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I tell the Secretary of State— [Interruption.] I mean the Minister for Europe, recycled. May I tell him that I am so pro-European that if he cut me in half, he would find yellow stars running through me, as in a stick of rock? However, those of us who are pro-European do not have a stomach for the constitution. We much prefer the gradualist approach, which has been the EU's strength in its development. It would be much more prudent if the UK pursued that policy rather than a grand constitution, which confused people and caused unnecessary alarm. We should stick to the gradualist approach, which has been a success for the past 30 years.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has added to the debate on this question, and I will endeavour to do my best to represent his views when we have further conversations with our European partners. The whole House will recognise that there is a range of opinions on this matter in the European Union—and in the House—and it is necessary for the United Kingdom Government to engage in those conversations. The problem with those on the Conservative Front Bench is that they simply stand on one side, saying that everyone is isolated except the Conservative party, and not participating in any way to defend Britain's best interests.

Palestinian Authority

Philip Hollobone: If she will make a statement on financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

Margaret Beckett: We remain committed to supporting the Palestinian people. On 25 April, we gave £15 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We strongly support the Quartet and the General Affairs and External Relations Council's proposal to establish a mechanism to provide assistance to the Palestinian people. However, until the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority commits to the three Quartet principles, which it has so far failed to do, direct budgetary assistance to the PA will remain suspended.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that corrupt officialdom in the Palestinian Authority, together with Hamas's refusal to recognise the right of Israel to exist, are impoverishing the Palestinian people and stoking the flames of Palestinian civil war?

Margaret Beckett: I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his final remark. I certainly agree, however, that the factors that he mentioned do nothing to improve either the security situation or the prospects for the Palestinian people. Our prime concern is that we should be able to mitigate the sufferings and difficulties of those people as much as we can, and that will continue to be our goal. We will also continue to urge Hamas to recognise how much better it would be for the people it has been elected to lead if it recognised the needs of the international community.

Gerald Kaufman: In welcoming my right hon. Friend to her very well merited appointment, and commending the fine work of her predecessor, may I ask her to bear in mind that the withholding of aid and revenues from the Palestinians by the international community, the withholding of revenues that rightly belong to the Palestinians by the Israeli Government, the illegal expansion of illegal settlements announced during the past few days by the Israeli Government, the continued expansion of the illegal wall—

Hon. Members: Too long!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made his point. I call the Foreign Secretary.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks and his support. I accept the basic point that he is making about the real risks involved in the deteriorating situation with regard to the flow of revenues. However, people are working now on establishing a temporary mechanism, and we very much hope that, by that means, we shall be able to alleviate some of the difficulties that the Palestinian people in particular will face. We will continue to work on that, as well as urging all parties to return to the road map and to a negotiated path to peace.

William Hague: The Quartet has rightly suspended budgetary aid and endorsed a temporary international mechanism to deliver assistance to the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what proposals the United Kingdom has put forward for that mechanism, and when it will be launched? Does she accept, on the basis of what I saw for myself last week in the occupied territories, that the Palestinian economy is now contracting very sharply indeed? Provided that such a mechanism cannot be abused, it needs to be established with all possible speed if serious humanitarian problems are to be avoided.

Margaret Beckett: I entirely take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. As much speed as can be achieved is of the essence. I cannot say much more to him about the detail, because there is still a lot of discussion to take place, but it appears likely that the first priority will be assistance with health care. There is a clear recognition, however, of the potential and actual damage being done both to the economy of Palestine and the ability of the Palestinian people to support themselves. I assure him that the urgency that he urges on us is very much present in our minds.

Helen Goodman: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on being the first woman to hold that post in this country. How does she believe that the provision of basic health and education services to the Palestinian people can be maintained if the salaries of those working in those services cannot be paid, as they are ultimately employed by the Palestinian Authority?

Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. Everyone is conscious both of the need for health and education services to be maintained and of the difficulties caused if funding is not available to pay salaries. Consideration is being given to the best ways in which we can offer practical help, as the course that she urges on us raises some genuine practical difficulties. I assure her, however, that we are considering what we can best achieve in the fastest way possible.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Winterton: What recent action the Government have taken to influence world opinion on the situation in Zimbabwe.

Geoff Hoon: During the past six months, the Government have worked with our EU partners to maintain travel, financial and military sanctions on the Mugabe regime; ensured that the International Monetary Fund keeps Zimbabwe suspended; kept Zimbabwe under scrutiny by the Security Council; worked with the UN Secretary-General to address Zimbabwe's governance problems; and, with the US and leading allies, maintained international pressure for change. We will sustain that pressure.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister agree with the United Nations, which reflects world opinion, that Zimbabwe is in meltdown? With 700,000 people losing their jobs and homes as a result of Mr. Mugabe's clearance policies, inflation at more than 500 per cent., unemployment at 80 per cent., and 70 per cent. of the population having only one meal or less per day, do the Government have a new agenda to use world opinion to remove from brutality and deprivation the good people of Zimbabwe?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the appalling state of affairs in Zimbabwe. That is entirely the responsibility of the Mugabe regime. I set out to the House the range of measures over which the Government have influence in informing world opinion, both through the EU and the UN, to keep the pressure on that regime. Change can come only from inside Zimbabwe, and we want to see that change in the interests of the people of that country.

Kate Hoey: Have Her Majesty's Government made any protest to the European Commission about the fact that the Humanitarian Aid and Development Commissioner met the Zimbabwean Finance Minister in Brussels recently? He was given a visa—perhaps, technically, he was allowed to have one—but surely his meeting with the commissioner goes against the whole spirit of the European Union sanctions. It sends out the message that if the European Union will meet Zimbabwe, why should the African Union not do so?

Geoff Hoon: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a long and sustained interest in the situation in Zimbabwe, and I know from her observations in the House of her personal commitment to trying to resolve the appalling situation faced by the people of Zimbabwe. That is really the issue. Clearly, we want to see sustained pressure on the regime and further international action to isolate Mugabe's leadership. At the same time, we have no quarrel whatever with the people of Zimbabwe, and we need to continue to find effective ways to allow food aid in particular to reach them. Above all, the tragedy of Zimbabwe is that it was the country that fed many other countries of southern Africa over a long period, and it is now incapable of feeding itself. We need to ensure that we do not take action that further damages the interests of the people of that country.

Nadine Dorries: On relinquishing her previous post, the Foreign Secretary left behind a trail of failure, disaster and unpaid farmers in my constituency. What—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is out of order.

Afghanistan

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What recent assessment she has made of progress with reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Kim Howells: Afghanistan has made rapid progress over the past four years. It has established a new constitution and a democratically elected president and parliament. The Afghan Government are committed to economic and social reconstruction. Economic growth is good and is forecast to be 14 per cent for 2005-06. There are now 60 per cent. more functioning health clinics, nearly 2,000 schools have been built or rehabilitated, and 60,000 former combatants have been disarmed since 2001.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that efforts to improve security in Afghanistan are an essential part of the reconstruction process. What is being done to ensure that the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development work together, so that the progress of which he speaks not only continues but thrives?

Kim Howells: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is committed to supporting the United Nations-authorised and NATO-led international security assistance force mission in Afghanistan. Stage 3 of ISAF expansion involves helping it to achieve its goal and enabling the Afghan Government to extend their authority across the entire country.
	I have seen for myself many DFID projects throughout Afghanistan that are achieving great things for the people there. Most important, 37 per cent. of children being educated in Afghanistan are girls. That would not have been allowed under the despotic Taliban regime, and it will make the greatest change to Afghanistan. I am very proud to welcome that development.

Mark Harper: The Minister will know that one of our key tasks in Afghanistan is to provide alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. DFID has said that the success of alternative livelihood programmes will depend on the security situation. The former Secretary of State for Defence said that the success of our security operations would depend on the success of the alternative livelihood programmes. Which of those comes first?

Kim Howells: It is not a chicken-and-egg situation, although it may sound like one. The fact is that we cannot afford to pay every farmer to produce crops other than the opium poppy. It is impossible: the costs would be astronomical. What we must do, therefore, is help to build a new infrastructure in Afghanistan, and provide people with skills enabling them to do the jobs that are required for the economy to be made viable.
	We are trying to do that, although there are people in Afghanistan—the Taliban, the drugs mafia and others—who do not want it to happen. They thrive on anarchy. They thrive in a country where there is no law and order, and where people can be killed very cheaply and easily. We and our military must work on that, and the 35 other countries in Afghanistan, along with the United Nations, must help to bring law and order to the country. That is precisely what we are doing now.
	The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we must do both those things at the same time. It is not easy, but I am confident that we can do it.

Joan Ruddock: Is my hon. Friend aware that a newly elected woman Member of Parliament, Malalai Joya, was recently attacked in the Parliament and is so threatened that she has to move to a safe house every night; that Salima Sharif and Raazia Balloch, who are councillors in Helmand, have both received death threats; and that Fauzia Ulomi, the head of the women's affairs department in that province, narrowly escaped assassination? Bearing in mind the Government's commitment to United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, will my hon. Friend undertake to discuss with the Afghan Government how they can further advance women's equality, and how they can do more to protect the status and security of their elected women representatives?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend has reinforced what I said a moment ago. We must ensure that we give whatever help we can to improve the general security position in Afghanistan—and certainly we must protect those brave women who, after many years of authoritarian, cruel Taliban rule, have put their heads above the parapet, stood for election and been elected. Indeed, President Karzai told me that he is very pleased with the number of women MPs who have been elected in Afghanistan, and that the proportion is higher than that in the British Parliament. That is something to be proud of.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to give us some good news about capacity building in Afghanistan. However, he told me in written answers on 9 February 2006, at columns 1444-45W of the  Official Report, that, according to the figures for 2004-05—the last year for which figures are available—some 4,100 tonnes of opium were produced in Afghanistan, of which a paltry 160 tonnes were seized. When does he expect the British Government's approach to assisting the national drugs control strategy in Afghanistan to have a better effect?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right that that year's opium poppy harvest was huge and this year's will, I think, be at least as big. Between now and September, when the next planting season begins, we have got to try to convince people not to grow poppies, especially in Helmand, where, according to figures that I saw the other day, some 23 per cent. of Afghanistan's opium poppies are grown. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) asked how we can do that, and the answer is that we have to convince people that something else can be grown, and that there are other jobs that will allow them to earn money. An enormous amount of aid is going in to provide help in that regard. Some of those jobs will be paid jobs, such as road-building, providing coolers for agricultural produce and providing the means of getting such produce out of the area. It was not so very long ago that Afghanistan was one of the biggest exporters to the EU of dessert grapes. Of course, the Taliban, in their wisdom, decided that there was a link between grapes and alcohol and they grubbed the vineyards. What did the farmers do? They started to grow opium. That has not been attacked, of course, by the Taliban or by anybody else. They now find it convenient to work with the opium barons to ensure that anarchy persists in that country, but we will do all that we can to ensure that they do not succeed.

Muslim Democracies

Gordon Prentice: What assessment she has made of the likelihood of more democracies emerging in the next decade in countries that have wholly or predominantly Muslim populations.

Kim Howells: Change is happening in many of those countries. Some will progress faster than others, but there is a demonstrable demand for greater democracy from the people of those countries, which should sustain the momentum for change. I welcome the conclusions of last December's summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which recognised the need for Governments to respond to that demand. Surveys such as those in the Arab human development report show a real desire for democracy, as Muslim countries from Mauritania to Indonesia feel the pressure to cope with huge demographic changes and significant increases in youth unemployment, combined with a revolution in worldwide communications that affects us all.

Gordon Prentice: The Library tells me that, according to an independent survey carried out this year of 46 countries with Muslim majority populations, 23 were not free, 20 were partly free and only three were free—up from one a decade ago. There is no inherent contradiction between, or conflict between, Islam and democracy, but why has progress been so painfully slow?

Kim Howells: There are probably many reasons. Certainly, there is no lack of examples of Muslim countries that have become successful democracies. One thinks of Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey, and we are seeing big moves toward democracy in Lebanon. We have witnessed, moreover, the first free presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt, so things are moving. If my hon. Friend is saying that there is some inherent contradiction between a country's being Muslim and its ability to become a democracy, I would have to disagree with him.

Greg Hands: Five of the 46 countries in question are in central Asia. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on EU partners to ensure that the visa ban and arms embargo on Uzbekistan, which will be essential in trying to foster democracy in that country, will be extended beyond October?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman can be sure that we will look carefully into anything that will further human rights in countries such as Uzbekistan and advance the cause of democracy and capacity building so that democracies can emerge. We are not in the business of trying to help dictators of whatever colour to thrive in their own country and certainly not to spread their influence beyond their own frontiers.

Richard Burden: As one of the international observers to the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January, I know that, whatever else one might say about Hamas, nobody can say that the election was not democratic or that it was not democratically elected. If the international community is saying to that democratic Government that international acceptance is dependent on them abiding by their international obligations, particularly in respect of recognising their neighbours, is the international community prepared to say the same thing to the new democratically elected Government of Israel? We know that Israel's new Prime Minister is suggesting that he will establish borders for the country—in defiance of international law—along the route of the wall and illegal settlements.

Kim Howells: The United Kingdom is the friend of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples and we have made it clear all along that we expect Israel to abide by the UN Security Council resolutions, in the same way that we expect the forces that have caused such chaos in Palestine to do. I have made it clear many times that I consider the building of the barrier by the Israelis so that it incorporates Palestinian territory to be wrong: it is illegal and it should not happen. It will do nothing to promote peace in the middle east and will generate only further terrorism among people in Palestine and elsewhere. I call on the Israelis to understand the significance of what they are doing in that respect. They certainly have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have the right to capture land that is not theirs.

Jeremy Wright: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of encouraging Muslim democracies is to encourage a modern, effective secular democracy in Turkey and that one of the best ways to achieve that is to argue for Turkish membership of the European Union?

Kim Howells: That is exactly what we have been doing. During my visits to Turkey, I have been struck by the great efforts made to make Turkey a more democratic country. There are many reasons why we need that, and we need it urgently. A great deal of Afghanistan heroin moves through Turkey into the EU and western Europe. We need to be able to co-operate with Turkey with confidence in order to disrupt those supplies before they get into the veins of children in this country.

International Arms Trade Treaty

David Kidney: If she will make a statement on progress towards an international arms trade treaty.

Margaret Beckett: We are building support for a UN-based process towards an international arms trade treaty. In 2005, we secured broad support from both the EU and the Commonwealth. A further global lobbying exercise is now under way, involving all of our overseas posts. We are in contact with a wide range of partners to secure agreement for the start of a formal process at the UN General Assembly later this year.

David Kidney: It is a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend in her new post and I am also pleased to hear that we are at the head of international efforts to secure control over the proliferation and misuse of conventional arms. Will she give some credit to non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International for their persistence in pushing that agenda? Does she accept that a still broader coalition could be built between Governments, NGOs, trade unions and legitimate business interests to secure the treaty through the UN?

Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend and can tell him that I am very happy to give full credit to NGOs, including Amnesty, for the way in which they have consistently pushed the agenda, even at discouraging times. He is absolutely right that, if we to be successful in promoting such a treaty, we will need an even wider and deeper international consensus. We share his view about its components and we are helping to build it.

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. Will she kindly inform the House what discussions she has had about the arms treaty with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry?

Margaret Beckett: Although I have had a substantial number of discussions since my appointment, I have not, as it happens, had discussions with the Ministry of Defence. However, it is my understanding that there is full support for that move and full recognition of the important contribution that it can make.

Tony Lloyd: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post. In terms of the arms trade, it is small weapons that are most often used to kill people, and the death toll is outrageous. The arms trade treaty is central to bearing down on that, but will she also try to develop the political will? For example, we know that states aspiring to join the EU are trading in small arms and helping to take the lives of millions of people.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I accept his basic point about the dangers of small arms. He will know that some agreements—although they are not legally binding—are already under review, and we hope that we can strengthen them. When I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) that we wished to continue to work to build an international consensus, that of course includes our many partners, because we recognise the dangers to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) alluded.

Muslim Brotherhood

Michael Gove: If she will make a statement on contact between her officials and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kim Howells: British officials have varying degrees of contact in a range of countries with those regarded as Muslim Brotherhood. This is during the normal course of their work to encourage democratic and tolerant societies that embrace the rule of law and universal human rights principles. We will continue to promote this agenda and to challenge those views with which we disagree.

Michael Gove: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that Mr. Mockbul Ali, Islamic issues adviser at the Foreign Office, recently co-authored a presentation describing the Muslim Brotherhood as "reformist, liberal and progressive". Given that the Muslim Brotherhood and its spiritual leader, Sheikh Qaradawi, support suicide bombing, the persecution of homosexuals and the establishment of sharia law across the middle east, can the Minister tell me just what aspects of the brotherhood's agenda his officials have told him are reformist, liberal or progressive?

Kim Howells: I certainly wish to emphasise that we do not seek to speak with those engaged in violence. Nor do we go out of our way to engage with non-violent organisations or individuals that support extremism and violence by others, but when we come across such cases, we press them to reject violence as a solution. We should be extremely careful not to paint all Islamists as violent, because they most certainly are not, and we are ready to engage with organisations and individuals who uphold the values of democracy and use peaceful means to achieve their objectives, challenging their views as necessary. Some of those have been elected, for example to the Egyptian Parliament, as independents, but are clearly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Our diplomats have met such people on occasion. We do not go out of our way to engage in such meetings, but when they occur, we argue the case for a non-violent approach. We argue against terrorism and we seek co-operation.

Louise Ellman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Mockbul Ali advised the Foreign Office that Sheikh Qaradawi should be admitted to this country, partly on the ground that to do otherwise would fuel Muslim views that there was a Jewish conspiracy throughout the world? Does my hon. Friend think that that is good advice and is Mr. Ali a good adviser?

Kim Howells: We get all sorts of advice from civil servants and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that sometimes we accept that advice and sometimes we do not.

Keith Simpson: So that the Minister does not feel left out, I congratulate him on having survived the recent purge—I mean, reshuffle—because I am glad to see him in his usual place. Following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), can the Minister tell the House whether the Foreign Office has any direct evidence that people in the Muslim Brotherhood to whom it has talked have been directly involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts?

Kim Howells: I certainly have no information on that, and I am not aware that anyone to whom we have spoken has been involved in such acts. The hon. Gentleman will recall, of course, that this Parliament has some history of engaging in secret talks with terrorist organisations, such as the IRA. Wherever possible, I shall endeavour to ensure that we do not engage with anyone who advocates terror, whether it be Islamist terrorism or some other sort, that threatens to kill innocent people.

St. Helena

Anthony Steen: If she will visit St. Helena to discuss ways of improving relations with the UK.

Geoff Hoon: The Government value our relationship with St. Helena. We have demonstrated our commitment by agreeing to invest in the construction of an airport on the island. In addition, other UK financial assistance for St. Helena will amount to more than £14 million this financial year.
	Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not our practice to announce such visits until they are firmly established in the diary. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel.

Anthony Steen: One way for the Government to improve their relations with St. Helena would be for a Foreign Office Minister to go there. None ever has, although I know that the journey takes 10 days. The Minister referred to the airport that is to be built, but the island's 3,800 inhabitants are concerned about the health implications. They are worried that the large numbers of foreign workers needed to build the airport could bring with them diseases that are alien to the island, such as HIV/AIDS. What can the Minister do to help in that regard?

Geoff Hoon: I am genuinely sorry that it has not been possible for Foreign Office Ministers to visit St. Helena, either in recent times or at all, although I know that my Front-Bench colleagues share an ambition to do so. I recognise the substantial concern that the hon. Gentleman identifies, and I assure him that the Government are taking very seriously the need to find appropriate ways to screen workers arriving on the island.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the Government's commitment to helping the people of St. Helena by building the airport. That runway will bring new lifeblood to the island, as the lack of employment has caused many people to leave. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a visit—perhaps he will take with him my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and that he will also call in at the Falklands and Gibraltar, to ensure that the people there get the proper representation that they deserve.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the airstrip is not planned to be finished until 2010. Given what I said about Ministers' engagement diaries, I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to such a visit. However, the new airport is clearly important to the islanders, and the Government are delighted to be able to make the money available. I have visited Ascension island several times and had the opportunity then to meet a number of people from St. Helena. My hon. Friend is right that many islanders have had to leave to find employment, but we believe that the airstrip will change that and offer valuable economic opportunities, not least in respect of tourism, as it becomes easier for people to visit the island.

Vincent Cable: When the Minister met those St. Helenians on Ascension island—which is a British dependent territory and an American base—did they communicate to him their enormous sense of betrayal? Five years ago, they were assured by the Governor of St. Helena and the British Government that they would have permanent residency rights. However, those rights have now been withdrawn, much as they were on Diego Garcia a generation ago.

Geoff Hoon: In fact, that issue did arise. It is something that we have taken very seriously.

Kashmir

Margaret Moran: What recent discussions she has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan on the line of control in Kashmir.

Kim Howells: Before I answer the question, I should like to take this opportunity to condemn yesterday's ambush by terrorists of a bus carrying Indian tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. I understand that the bus driver was killed, and that further casualties may be announced. That is just the latest in a succession of atrocities, including the murder by terrorists of people participating in a rally in Srinagar last Sunday. Such crimes are designed to derail the peace process, but I understand that, as of today, talks are still making incremental progress.

Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and join him in condemning the bombing reported today. We all welcomed the relaxation of movement over the line of control during the earthquake period, which brought division and terrible tragedy to families. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time is right for us to encourage both countries to relax the line of control further, to enable the movement of families between the countries and particularly to invite in human rights organisations to ensure that atrocities of the sort that we see daily are at least monitored, if not prevented?

Kim Howells: The kinds of answer suggested by my hon. Friend to this intractable problem are interesting. Ultimately, they have to be agreed and decided on by the two parties—India and Pakistan. I was glad to see a relaxation of the line of control during the earthquake. It helped rescue and rebuilding, especially in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. It is good to see the Pakistan Government closing down some of the terrorist camps and support bases for terrorists in Indian-controlled Kashmir and I very much hope that will continue. I know that all sides will look carefully at the types of suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and I shall be interested in their responses.

Points of Order

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have received five replies to questions to the Home Office dated from 15 May back to 18 April, all of which promise a proper reply either shortly or as soon as possible, yet I have received none. Nor have I received replies to questions I tabled on 29 March and 14 March. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, of the further steps I can take to persuade Ministers to reply to parliamentary questions?

Mr. Speaker: Even five replies is good going—the hon. Gentleman is doing well. He should persevere and keep at the Ministers concerned; he should get on the phone and ask them why his questions have not been answered.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the Deputy Prime Minister was appointed to his new responsibilities, I tabled a written question asking him what criteria he would be applying for future visits to Dorneywood, which I would have thought would not require a great deal of research. Several days ago I received a holding answer, so I put down another question asking when the right hon. Gentleman would answer, but I have had no reply to that either. Do you think that perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister is overtaxed by his new responsibilities, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I will not get drawn into those arguments.

Corruption

Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about corruption.
	I begin by declaring my interests, both as chair of the Africa all-party parliamentary group, which received funding from KPMG and Deloitte to print and publish its recent report on corruption in Africa, and for the advice and assistance with preparing the Bill that I received from Transparency International (UK).
	In 1998 I sought to introduce a Bill to criminalise transnational bribery. It was opposed by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who argued that it could put British business at a disadvantage in some international markets. I see that the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber; I have discussed this Bill with him and I am grateful for his support for it. Much has changed since 1998.
	Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations have adopted international conventions against bribery and corruption, and the limited purpose of my 1998 Bill was eventually enacted as a Government measure in 2001. There is no longer a risk of putting British companies at a disadvantage compared with their competitors, because all OECD countries, and all UN states, are now expected to legislate against corruption to similar standards.
	Arguably, the United Kingdom has fallen behind, because it appears to be applying the conventions less rigorously than some other states. The OECD review of the UK's compliance with the OECD convention noted that the United States and France, for example, had prosecuted companies registered in their countries for transnational bribery offences while the UK had not, although I know that some UK cases are under investigation.
	As a member of the International Development Committee, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of international and domestic corruption for poor people in poor countries. Their already precarious incomes are reduced further when corrupt officials demand bribes for services that are supposed to be provided free of charge. Everybody loses out when a high official or a Minister pockets public money that should be used to buy medicine or education, or to build roads.
	The Prime Minister's Commission for Africa reported that
	"systemic corruption can add as much as 25 per cent to the costs of government procurement",
	and that
	"of the US$4 trillion spent worldwide on government public contracts each year, some $400 billion is lost to bribery."
	That $400 billion is more than the total annual income of every person in Africa. It would build a lot of schools and roads, and is 140 times the amount spent by the Global Fund on treating AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Africa in the first five years of the fund's existence.
	The impact of corruption goes far further than the money lost. It creates a blight on investment and private sector development, and it holds back economic growth. Corruption funds and facilitates organised crime and terrorism. The proceeds flow into money-laundering structures, and the UK is involved because of the importance of the City of London and some UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories as international financial centres. To their credit, the UK Government led the international donor community last year in doubling aid to Africa, but the UK needs to take a similar leadership role in tackling the supply side of international corruption.
	The current law on corruption rests on a confusing mix of common law and statutes—principally the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1889, 1906 and 1916. The Law Commission published proposals for reform in March 1998. The proposals were taken forward in a draft Bill published by the Government in 2003, and referred for scrutiny to an all-party Joint Committee. The Bill tried to define corrupt activity by using an artificially extended concept of agency, which was of byzantine complexity. The Joint Committee's report on the Bill was clear, unanimous and trenchant. It concluded that the Government's approach would not be understood by police, prosecutors, jurors or the public—including, especially, the business and public sector communities and their advisers, both here and abroad. The Committee suggested a more straightforward way to define corrupt activity. That was initially rejected by the Government in December 2003, but last December the Home Office reopened its proposals to consultation.
	The all-party Africa group, and an all-party panel of Members campaigning against corruption, submitted evidence calling for a wholly new Bill to address contemporary problems and to replace the existing legislation, which is 100 years old. To take that idea forwards, Transparency International (UK), with funding from the York-based Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, drafted a corruption Bill, which, with some minor amendments, I am introducing today.
	The key objective of the Bill is to reform the law of bribery in a way that will be readily intelligible, responsive to contemporary problems and fully compliant with the OECD and UN conventions. That would improve the prospects for successful prosecutions and help the Government to develop a coherent anti-corruption strategy. A clear new law is in the national interest. By enacting the Bill, the UK will demonstrate its willingness to assume a leading role in fighting corruption worldwide. That will reinforce the leading role of the City of London as the marketplace for world trade, finance and investment, and strengthen the UK's role in the international campaigns against terrorism and organised crime.
	The fight against corruption is not anti-business. Promoting high standards of business integrity will maintain confidence in the UK's equities and securities markets, and tough laws outlawing corrupt practices strengthen business and markets, because they remove unacceptable levels of risk and anti-competitive conduct. The Bill defines bribery by reference to the improper conduct that is intended to result from the bribe. It defines corruption in law in the way that most people think of corruption and bribery. It is much clearer than the 2003 draft Bill.
	My Bill also includes several new features of anti-corruption law. There is an offence of bribery of foreign public officials that corresponds precisely with the requirements of the OECD and UN conventions. There is a new offence of foreign bid rigging in competitive tendering. That problem was identified by the Joint Committee and does not fall easily within normal definitions of bribery. There is a new offence designed to safeguard the integrity of sporting events by criminalising the fixing of a race or match. That activity is frequently rooted in betting and linked to organised crime. With London hosting the 2012 Olympics, the creation of such an offence would send out an important message.
	The Bill includes two new duties to be enforced through criminal sanctions. One requires UK companies to take steps to ensure that subsidiary companies and other contractually related parties do not commit corruption offences. The other requires public servants to report offers of bribes, or reasonable suspicions of corrupt practices. The Bill would remove the pointless and embarrassing requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General for any prosecution for corruption. It would empower the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute corruption cases without having to show that fraud is involved.
	The Bill is worthy of a leading G8 nation that has ratified the international anti-corruption conventions, including the UN convention now in force. It would destroy the myth that there is competitive advantage for UK companies and nationals in being free to bribe abroad—a behaviour that few businesses would contemplate in this country. It is a timely and necessary Bill, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Hugh Bayley, Mr. John Denham, Mike Gapes, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Chris Mullin, John Bercow, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Gary Streeter, Tony Baldry, James Duddridge, Norman Lamb and Mr. Tom Clarke.

Corruption

Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about corruption: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 185].

Education and Inspections Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Order of 15(th) March 2006 (Education and Inspections Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows—
	1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
	3. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			  First Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2 except those relating to the closure of special schools, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to foundations, amendments to Clauses 7 to 31, amendments to Schedules 2 and 3, remaining Government new Clauses and new Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to allegations against teachers, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to school discipline or home-school contracts, amendments to Part 7, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to grouping by ability. The moment of interruption or, if later, six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			  Second Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Remaining new Clauses and new Schedules except those relating to school admissions or to the general duties of local education authorities in relation to the provision of education. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to school admissions, amendments to Clauses 36 to 48, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the general duties of local education authorities in relation to the provision of education, remaining proceedings on consideration. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. 
		
	
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day or, if later, six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. —[Jim Knight.]

Nick Gibb: I do not intend to detain the House on the programme motion. We support the broad principles of the Bill because it will make it easier for parent groups and other non-profit organisations to establish new schools and the new trust school concept will enable schools to have greater independence in their day-to-day running. We also support the Bill because it will make it easier to close bad schools and will put the disciplinary powers of teachers on a statutory basis.
	However, we want the Bill to be debated in full, not least because we are less than happy with several of its elements. We thought that the programme motion moved after Second Reading provided insufficient time in Committee. In the end, the Government had to add an extra eight hours of Committee time, with two extended evening sittings and an extra day's sitting. Even with that, several clauses were not debated because they were lost to the knife.
	Given the amount of interest in the Bill, it is likely that some groups of amendments, such as those on false allegations against teachers and the new clauses on the teaching of reading and the welfare of vulnerable pupils, are unlikely to be reached. However, we are keen for the good elements of the Bill to pass swiftly on to the statute book, so we will not oppose the motion.

Sarah Teather: May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State, and congratulating him on his new role? A reshuffle in the middle of Committee stage is hardly a dream, but I am sure that he will dazzle us with his mastery of his brief. I look forward to debating with him in the months ahead.
	In common with Conservative spokesmen, we are concerned that the programme motion provides inadequate time to debate our concerns. In particular, we are worried that we will not reach the new clauses on vulnerable pupils that we tabled in Committee; indeed, we did not have enough time to reach them then. We do not wish to waste the time of the House, so we will not oppose the programme motion. Nevertheless, we wish to place on the record our concern that inadequate time has been provided.

John Redwood: I do not want to delay the business either, as this is an important Bill that we wish to scrutinise carefully. Like other contributors, I fear that there is not enough time under the timetabling motion. I am particularly disturbed that the National Union of Teachers is running a campaign to influence hon. Members, as I have received two or three standard letters asking us to use this opportunity to vote down all selection by aptitude or ability. Two very fine grammar schools serve my constituency. The majority of my constituents and I want to sustain them so that they can flourish, and I am not sure that there is adequate time under the programme motion to debate that crucial point and remain in order. I hope that the Government will join us in saying that fine grammar schools that are well supported by local communities have every right to life and should not be threatened. I am not sure why the NUT think that we can vote today or tomorrow to stop that practice, but it is important to tell people outside the House about its campaign to destroy fine grammar schools, and to put on the record our staunch support for those schools.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Education and Inspections Bill
	 — 
	[1st allotted day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	 [Relevant documents: The Eighteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Ninth Progress Report, HC 1098, and the letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the Chairman of the Committee, dated 22nd May 2006.]

New Clause 33
	 — 
	proposals under section 7 relating to community or community special schools

'(1) A local education authority may by virtue of subsection (5)(b)(ii) of section 7 publish proposals under that section for the establishment of a community or community special school—
	(a) only if at a prescribed time prescribed conditions are met in relation to the authority, and
	(b) except where further prescribed conditions are also met in relation to the authority at that time, only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The conditions prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b) must include conditions relating to the standards achieved by the authority in performing the functions to which Chapter 4 of Part 8 (inspection and review of local authorities in England) applies.
	(3) The other conditions that may be prescribed for those purposes are conditions relating to either or both of the following—
	(a) the standards of performance achieved by any relevant school, and
	(b) the extent of diversity among relevant schools.
	(4) The matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in determining whether to give consent under subsection (1)(b) include standards of the kind mentioned in subsections (2) and (3)(a) and the extent of diversity among relevant schools.
	(5) The power by virtue of subsection (2) or (3)(a) to prescribe standards includes power to prescribe them by reference to the opinion of the Chief Inspector or by reference to any rating awarded by the Chief Inspector following an inspection or review under any enactment.
	(6) In this section—
	"Chief Inspector" means Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills;
	"maintained school" does not include a maintained nursery school;
	"relevant school", in relation to a local education authority, means a maintained school maintained by the authority or an Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts in the area of the authority.'. — [Alan Johnson.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16— Ballot of parents on change of category from community school to foundation school—
	'(1) A proposal for a prescribed alteration involving a change of category from community school to foundation school may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).'.
	New clause 17— Ballot of parents before publication of proposals under section 7—
	'(1) The local education authority may publish a proposal under section 7 only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending schools which, in the opinion of the local education authority, may be affected by the proposal.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).
	(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a proposal under section 7(5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or community special school.'.
	New clause 18— Duty to establish new school where current provision is inadequate—
	'Where—
	(a) fewer than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local education authority are foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, or an Academy, or
	(b) more than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local authority are in Ofsted category 4,
	the local authority must publish a notice under section 7 inviting proposals for a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school.'.
	New clause 19— Duty to establish new school when supported in adequate numbers—
	'(1) Where a local education authority in England receive representations from parents of 100 or more qualifying children demanding the establishment of a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school, the authority must publish a notice under section 7.
	(2) In this section "qualifying child", in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.
	New clause 21— Establishment of community schools—
	'Where the Secretary of State is asked to grant consent for the proposal of a new community school under section 7 or 9, he shall act with a view to encouraging all schools to become foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, and to acquire a foundation.'.
	New clause 22— Assistance for proposals for new schools—
	'(1) A local education authority in England shall provide advice and assistance to parents of children in the area of the authority in connection with developing a proposal for the establishment of a new school under sections 7 and 9.
	(2) In particular, the authority shall provide support, which shall include dedicated consultancy support, to parents to ensure that any proposals brought forward are viable.
	(3) In exercising its functions under this section, the authority shall act with a view to ensuring the development of viable proposals by parents.
	(4) An authority may not refuse to assist a parent solely on the grounds that the original proposal is underdeveloped, unworkable or in practical respects substandard.'.
	New clause 23— Parental ballot etc. on change of category from foundation school to community school—
	'(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that at least one-fifth of the parents of pupils attending a foundation (or foundation special) school are in favour of a change of the category of that school to community (or community special) school, the Secretary of State must designate such person or body as he considers appropriate ("the designated body") to act for the purposes of this section.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, if he sees fit, designate the governing body of the school or the local education authority as the designated body.
	(3) The designated body must initiate a proposal for the change of category referred to in subsection (1).
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers exepedient to amend, vary or supplement the provisions of this Part in relation to proposals under subsection (3).
	(5) A proposal under subsection (3) may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
	(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (5).'.
	New clause 25— Duties of the schools commissioner—
	'(1) The Schools Commissioner shall establish and make publicly available a list of potential trustees whom he has approved as appropriate for the role in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State.
	(2) A local education authority shall not consider any proposals under sections 7, 9 or 10 or alterations under sections 17 or 20 made by organisations other than those approved and listed by the Schools Commissioner.
	(3) School governing bodies shall not enter negotiations or foundation agreements with trustee partners who have not been approved by the Schools Commissioner.'.
	New clause 35— Role of the schools commissioner—
	'(1) The Schools Commissioner shall promote fair access, choice, and diversity for all maintained schools.
	(2) The Schools Commissioner shall provide advice and assistance to governing bodies and local education authorities in respect of—
	(a) setting up new foundation schools, and
	(b) an alteration of a maintained school to the category of foundation school, particularly with regard to supporting schools and raising standards in disadvantaged or deprived areas.
	(3) The Schools Commissioner shall have responsibility for strategic oversight and monitoring of the admissions process in local authority areas, with particular regard to fair access and equitable admission policies for children with special educational needs.
	(4) The Schools Commissioner shall monitor the collaboration and co-operation among new foundation schools.
	(5) The Schools Commissioner shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament and, in particular, to the Education and Skills Committee of the House of Commons on his responsibilities and on his annual report.'.
	New clause 38— Secretary of State's consent for community and community special school proposals—
	'The Secretary of State shall consent to the publication of proposals under subsection 7(5)(b)(ii) or subsection 9(1) as the case may be unless he is satisfied that the proposal so to be published would not result in the improvement of the quality of education for pupils in the area concerned.'.
	New clause 44— School governing body to hold meeting of parents on change of category—
	'Where—
	(a) a local education authority or the governing body of a maintained school wish to consider a proposal to make a prescribed alteration such as is mentioned in subsection 17(2), and
	(b) the local education authority or the governing body is capable of proposing that alteration,
	no decision to make the proposal shall be made without there having first been convened by the local authority or the governing body (as the case may be) a meeting at which the parents of pupils registered at the school concerned shall have been provided with the opportunity to discuss and make representations on a draft of the proposal.'.
	New clause 53— Duty to encourage schools to become self-governing and to acquire a trust—
	'(1) A person to whom this section applies shall ensure that their functions relating to maintained schools are (so far as they are capable of being exercised) exercised with a view to encouraging all maintained schools to become self-governing, and to acquire a foundation.
	(2) In this section "self-governing" in relation to a maintained school means a foundation, voluntary aided or foundation special school, or an Academy.
	(3) This section applies to—
	(a) a local education authority in England;
	(b) the Secretary of State.'.
	New clause 56— Abolition of surplus places rule—
	'A local education authority in England may not reject a proposal for the establishment or alteration of a maintained school solely on the grounds that it would create surplus places at other schools in the area.'.
	New clause 57— Prohibition on the establishment of new community schools—
	'No new community or community special school may be established in England after the coming into force of this Act.'.
	New clause 58— Role of local authorities—
	'(1) A local authority in England may not publish its own proposal for the establishment of new community schools.
	(2) In exercising its functions in relation to school organisation a local authority in England must act with a view to commissioning school places rather than providing them directly.'.
	New clause 61— Schools commissioner—
	'(1) There shall be a Schools Commissioner.
	(2) The Schools Commissioner shall have a duty to encourage schools to become Trust schools.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a Trust school is a foundation school with a foundation.'.
	New clause 62— Power of Secretary of State to require a school to become a foundation school—
	'(1) If the Secretary of State determines that education at a school is unsatisfactory, he may by order require the governing body of a school to acquire foundation status.
	(2) Where the Secretary of State issues an order under subsection (1), the governing body of the school shall publish proposals in accordance with sections 18 to 20.'.
	New clause 64— Adoption of foundation status—
	'All existing maintained schools may apply to the Secretary of State to adopt foundation status, and the Secretary of State shall grant such foundation status unless there are overriding circumstances which make this impossible.'.
	New clause 48— Register of institutions approved to act as a foundation of a school—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a register of all institutions approved by him to act as or take part in the foundation of a foundation school.
	(2) In considering whether to approve an institution under this section, the Secretary of State shall consider evidence that the institution is—
	(a) capable of contributing to the raising of school standards,
	(b) capable of promoting community cohesion,
	(c) not involved in activities inappropriate for children and young people,
	(d) capable of conforming to the charitable objectives of the foundation, and
	(e) able to demonstrate that its trustees are not involved in illegal activities or any other activities incompatible with the good reputation of any school of which it may be the foundation or in the foundation of which it may participate.
	(3) An institution may not act as nor take any part in the foundation of a foundation school unless registered as approved by the Secretary of State under this section.
	(4) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—
	(a) the form and manner in which applications for registration are to be made;
	(b) the documentary and other evidence which is to accompany applications for registration;
	(c) the registration, on the establishment of the register, of institutions which have not made such applications;
	(d) the matters which are to be recorded in the register against the institutions registered in it;
	(e) the restoration and alteration of entries;
	(f) the information contained in the register which may be made available for inspection by members of the public, and the circumstances in which and the conditions subject to which that information may be made available; and
	(g) such other matters as may be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment No. 88, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 7], at end insert—
	'(ba) state whether or not the proposed school is to be a federated school'.
	Government amendment No. 42
	Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 18 [Clause 7], leave out
	'with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
	Amendment No. 101, in page 7 [Clause 7], leave out lines 18 to 20.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 28 [Clause 8], leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 102, in page 7 [Clause 9], leave out line 39.
	Amendment No. 111, in page 8, line 6 [Clause 9], at end insert—
	'(2A) The Secretary of State shall not give consent for the establishment of a new community or community special school under subsection (1)(a) above unless—
	(a) no other provider expresses an interest in establishing a similar school, and
	(b) the local authority is rated "very good" or "good" by Ofsted.'.
	Amendment No. 89, in page 9, line 28 [Clause 11], leave out '7, 9 or 10' and insert '9 and 10(1)'.
	Amendment No. 90, in page 9, line 31 [Clause 11], at end insert—
	'(1A) Proposals under section 7 or 10(2) for the establishment of a new school in England must relate to the establishment of the school as a federated school.'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 30 [Clause 17], leave out 'foundation or'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 12, line 32 [Clause 17], leave out paragraph (d).
	Amendment No. 91, in page 12, line 39 [Clause 17], at end insert—
	'(g) any change from federated foundation school to non-federated foundation school.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 13, line 17 [Clause 18], at end insert
	', and
	(iv) a change of category from foundation school to community school or from foundation special school to community special school.'.
	Amendment No. 105, in page 14, line 34 [Clause 20], after 'school,', insert 'with or'.
	Amendment No. 106, in page 14, line 37 [Clause 20], after 'school,' , insert 'with or'.
	Amendment No. 107, in page 15 [Clause 20], leave out lines 1 to 23.
	Amendment No. 108, in page 15 [Clause 21], leave out lines 25 to 41.
	Government amendment No. 43
	Amendment No. 96, in page 21, line 39 [Clause 31], after 'description,', insert—
	'(aa) is registered on the list maintained by the Secretary of State under section [Register of institutions approved to act as a foundation of a school],'.
	Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 21, line 43 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and insert '50'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 22, line 4 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and and insert '50'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 22, line 7 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and and insert '50'.
	Government amendment No. 46
	Amendment No. 92, in page 22, line 12 [Clause 31], after 'foundation', insert
	'including its duties to act in a collaborative fashion with other maintained schools in the local authority area'.
	Government amendments Nos. 47, 70, 84 to 86 and 71 to 75.
	New clause 26— Requirements as to composition of governing bodies—
	'(1) The governing body of a maintained school, Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts may comprise—
	(a) foundation governors;
	(b) elected parent governors;
	(c) staff representatives; and
	(d) community representatives.
	(2) Foundation schools shall not appoint a majority of governors who are foundation governors and in no case shall governors who are foundation governors outnumber elected parent governors.'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 14 [Clause 2], at end insert—
	'(3B) A local education authority may discharge its duty under subsection (3A)(a) in relation to secondary schools by encouraging a diversity of specialism among the community and voluntary schools which it maintains.'.

Alan Johnson: May I set out the Government's position on the new clause and the other propositions in this group of amendments?
	At the heart of the Bill is the Government's desire and determination to ensure to ensure that every child is able to fulfil their potential. That means ensuring that every school achieves the standards of the best but, above all, it means ensuring that children from deprived backgrounds receive the same educational opportunities as more fortunate children. The determination that all of our children should able to fulfil their potential lies behind the school organisation provisions in part 2. We are creating a new system in which all schools operate with as much freedom as possible within a strong framework that guarantees fairness and promotes collaboration.
	Clause 1 demonstrates our commitment in that respect, and it gives local authorities new duties to carry out all their education functions with a view to ensuring high standards for every pupil and, if our amendment is accepted later in proceedings, to promote fair access. Over the past nine years, we have made significant progress in achieving these aspirations. Last year's results at every key stage were the best ever. We have radically reformed the work-force—there are more, better trained teachers supported by a wide range of professionals—and we have ensured that there are fewer schools in special measures. Schools that are in difficulties are turned round more quickly.
	Those are impressive achievements, but we cannot afford to stand still. There are still too many underperforming schools and too many children, especially in deprived areas, who are not given the educational opportunities that they need. We know what works. The best schools are self-confident, with strong leadership and governance infusing everything that they do. They harness other available sources of expertise, whether from other schools, colleges, businesses or the voluntary and community sectors. We have seen the benefits of such an approach through the success of specialist schools and academies. The proposals in the Bill extend those opportunities to all schools and give local authorities a distinct new role as the commissioners, rather than the providers, of school places, the champions of parents and pupils and the guarantors of high standards.
	Local authorities are central to the new system. Rather than sounding the death knell for local authority involvement in education, as some have suggested, if anything the Bill marks a rebirth of their role. There are new powers to intervene in failing schools and to take the lead in commissioning school places in line with the needs of the communities that they serve. For the first time local authorities will be able to propose expansion to or the addition of special educational needs provision to all maintained schools, and they will take a leading role in ensuring fairness and helping to overcome disadvantage.
	The Bill also puts parents at the heart of the system. Clause 3 gives local authorities a duty to respond to parental concerns, and we have published illustrative guidance which sets out how this duty should be met. Clause 35 requires all governing bodies to have regard to the views of parents, and any proposals relating to new schools or the acquisition of trusts must be subject to full consultation with parents and the wider community.
	We believe that these provisions provide the right degree of rigour, tempered by local flexibility. For that reason, we think that compulsory local ballots are an unnecessary red herring, whether they are designed to trigger competitions, as the Opposition suggest in new clause 19, to approve proposals within competitions, as proposed by my hon. Friends in new clause 17 and amendment No. 5, or to approve proposals to become a foundation school, as proposed by my hon. Friends in new clause 16. Compulsory ballots or petitions on any of these issues would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, requiring expensive procedures and precise definitions of process and electorates that would in many cases be inappropriate.
	In respect of new clause 16 and the proposition to ballot parents if a school plans to become a trust, I remind the House that a governing body that wished to hold a ballot would be entirely free to do so as part of locally determined arrangements for consultation, but that should be its choice, not a requirement dictated from Whitehall. Where there is controversy, it may make sense to hold a ballot. It is certainly important that we ensure that parental views are adequately taken into account through consultation. Where a school decides to acquire a trust, the local authority has the power to refer that decision to the adjudicator if it believes that the consultation process has not been followed properly or that adequate attention has not been paid to the views of respondents. That is an extremely important check on the autonomy of the governing body.

Nick Gibb: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it will not be regarded as a poor consultation process if a governing body decides not to conduct an indicative ballot, and that that therefore will not be grounds for the local authority to refer it to the schools adjudicator? Can he confirm that he will put nothing to that effect in the guidance when he firms up the draft?

Alan Johnson: I can, in the sense that not holding a ballot would not be failure to consult, but if the local authority was aware that there was a very strong body of opinion among parents or a demand among parent governors for a ballot, and that the outcome of the consultation in some way conflicted with that view, it may then refer the matter to the adjudicator. The local authority must make sure that there has been adequate consultation with parents, and if that consultation has taken place, that the parental views are reflected in the outcome. What we say is that to insist in legislation that on every occasion, irrespective of circumstances and regardless of how controversial the change may be—and I predict that most will not be controversial—the only method of consultation must be a ballot is too dictatorial and unnecessarily prescriptive.

Paul Farrelly: Ballots are mandatory when a change is in prospect from a grammar school to a community school, so why should the same principle not apply to a change from community school status to foundation status?

Alan Johnson: Because this is not a change from a grammar school to a community school. We set out the arrangements when we were in opposition in 1996, and we set them out again when we entered government in 1997. Incidentally, the matter is different from grant- maintained schools, for which ballots were also required. We are discussing a school that remains part of the local authority, that continues to pay the same terms and conditions to its teachers and that is funded in exactly the same way as any other community school by the local authority. If the governing body wants to move to trust status, it will be required to consult parents; incidentally, consultation with parents in feeder schools is also part of the procedures and guidance. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic to insist prescriptively that there must be a ballot in all circumstances.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend has mentioned grant-maintained schools. Does he agree that one of the many failings of grant-maintained schools concerned the issue of the ballot in which the parent whose child was just about to leave the school had the same vote as the parent whose child was going to spend another five years at the school, while the parent of the child who was just about to join the school had no vote at all? The ballot raised more problems that it solved. Because schools have many partners these days, it is important that consultation goes wider than simply parents.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that grant-maintained schools had to hold a ballot every year, but Conservative Members know more about that than me. All I know is that that was a bad policy which it would be bad to replicate, particularly in relation to ballots, where the problems that my hon. Friend has mentioned were apparent.
	I am more sympathetic to new clause 44 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). In practice, however, I believe that many governing bodies will hold the sort of public meeting required by his proposed new clause, and I do not think that we should make such a meeting an absolute requirement.

Louise Ellman: The change from a community school to a trust school is fundamental. Will my right hon. Friend indicate how he can ensure that adequate consultation is carried out involving all the people who could be affected by the potential change?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend will know that we have set out guidance on that matter, which is available in the House of Commons Library. The proposal is that the governing body must agree, and if it does not agree, then the matter will go no further. If the governing body believes that the proposal should be put to consultation, then it must be consultation not only with parents at that school, but with parents at feeder schools, too. That consultation must be meaningful and real, which is why we have introduced the back-stop of the local authority being able to refer the issue to the schools adjudicator, if it believes that the consultation has not been done properly. There are many ways to consult, and my point is that a ballot is not the only one.

Tony Baldry: I have a different problem. Will the Secretary of State explain why the governors of, for example, Banbury school should want to change to trust status? Given all those caveats, what is in it for the parents and children of a school such as Banbury school in my constituency to acquire trust status? It may be that I am being particularly stupid, but I have not got that yet.

Alan Johnson: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being particularly stupid. A school would take that decision to give it more control, to introduce autonomy and to federate and co-operate with, for example, a university, a successful school, a further education college or a business trust. Such arrangements exist at the moment, but they are precarious. Sometimes they depend on one or two head teachers or local authority leaders being particularly forceful, but when such people move on, the federation falls apart. The provision will establish such federations on a more permanent basis. For all those reasons, particularly that of having more control and more decision making locally at the school, it is a very good proposition.

Simon Burns: Could the Secretary of State help me with something that has slightly amazed me? This morning, I received by fax a letter about this group of amendments and the Bill in general that urged me to vote against the amendments and against the Bill on Third Reading. It came from the West Chelmsford Labour party. Why does he think that it has done that?

Alan Johnson: I have spent many happy hours deliberating on how the West Chelmsford Labour party reached its decision, but I still have not managed to fathom it out.

John Redwood: Like some of my hon. Friends, I do not think that there are enough powers for foundation schools. Would it be possible to extend under order the powers that are available to them if they are a success?

Alan Johnson: There are no plans to move further than what is currently in the regulations. We now have a real opportunity to learn from what works best and to apply that. At the moment, schools can opt for various strands, including being a specialist school or an academy, but a whole host of bureaucracy is associated with all of them. The formulation of trusts maintaining those schools within the local authority family of schools is a very attractive proposition, which is why I think that it will be widely supported.

James Clappison: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. Does he agree that the attributes that he ascribed to new foundation schools are precisely those that applied to grant-maintained schools, except that they did not have a ballot or benefit from some of the unusual funding arrangements from which foundation schools may benefit? None the less, in view of the very successful grant-maintained schools in my constituency, I welcome the foundation schools that he is introducing.

Alan Johnson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Grant-maintained schools could select, had more money, were outside the local authority family, and could pay their staff on the basis of different terms and conditions. There is a world of difference between our proposals and grant-maintained schools.

Gordon Prentice: I have a very simple question. How many schools does the Secretary of State believe will go for trust status, say, by the end of this Parliament?

Alan Johnson: If I were to hazard a guess—I may be making myself a hostage to fortune—I would say a great many.

John Bercow: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new clause does not prohibit a school from federating or otherwise forging a link with a private university? I ask that because the University of Buckingham, an outstanding institution in my constituency, is the only independent university in the United Kingdom.

Alan Johnson: It is also the only university that does a two-year degree. There would be nothing to stop a school federating with that university.
	Trust schools will provide the drive and innovation of new approaches and new partners. In some cases, the governing body might wish the trust to appoint a majority of governors where it believes that a charitable foundation can strengthen the leadership and governance of a school. We are therefore resisting new clause 26, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would prevent that possibility. Majority governance is not at the expense of parental engagement. Parents will continue to make up one third of the governing body in trust schools, as in all maintained schools. Furthermore, a trust that appoints the majority of governors will be required to establish a parent council.

Sarah Teather: But surely the point is that there would be a reduction in the number of elected parent governors. It is not adequate to substitute a parent council where there is a duty to consult. As elected politicians we should be supporting the right to have that kind of democratic decision making.

Alan Johnson: It is a matter for the governing body to decide. It can decide whether to become a trust, and then decide whether to allow the trust to have a majority. That happens in a voluntary-aided school in my constituency, and it has worked successfully for many years. If the governing body makes that decision, parents must make up the same proportion of the governing body. As for whether they are elected parents or appointed parents, they are parents. The safeguards in the Bill maintain the voice of parents. New clause 26 would take away the right to have that majority.

Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend knows that the Select Committee recommended that all parent governors on a trust should be elected. How can he argue that parents on a trust represent parents with children at a school unless those parents have a right to elect their representatives?

Alan Johnson: I believe that governing bodies that decide to have a majority trust—I stress that it is governing bodies' decision—will predominantly be of successful schools that federate with unsuccessful schools and try to raise the standards in the unsuccessful school. When part of the reason for the former's success is the quality of its governing body, I believe that the preponderance of governors from the trust, including parents, will try to replicate that in the unsuccessful school. However, that can be done only with the complete agreement of the governing body. If the governing body decides not to take that route, it still has a trust, but not majority trust representation on it.

Frank Dobson: If a governing body decided go for trust status, would it be required, before it was granted that status, to declare its attitude towards parent representation?

Alan Johnson: No, it would not. The other important point to bear in mind is that, if the circumstances that I have described occur—that is, there is a majority on the board of governors from the trust—a parent council must be set up. It will be an important voice in the way in which the school is run. All trust school governing bodies would still be required to have at least one elected parent and many would have more.
	I am confident that many schools will use the opportunity of trust status to put existing collaborative arrangements on a more secure footing. However, forcing new schools to be part of federations, for which amendments Nos. 88 to 92, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), would provide, is unnecessarily restrictive. For example, it would be unreasonable for a prospective new school to have to receive the agreement of at least one other school in the area that they would have a single governing body before it could be established.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend has expressed reservations about including a requirement for federation in the Bill. It is therefore incumbent on him to spell out a little more precisely how he envisages collaboration, which, he says, is already inherent in the process, working between trust schools and other schools in the local authority area. Will he do that?

Alan Johnson: Once we have established the schools commissioner, his role will be to act as a broker for schools interested in forging trusts with universities, colleges, business trusts, charities and so on, and setting up the arrangements. We greatly favour encouraging federations. The problem with amendment No. 88 is that it is prescriptive and would provide that there must be a federation on every occasion. Some schools will want to have the benefits of being a foundation without having a federation. The vast majority will not, especially given the 14 to 19 factors, which will put vocational education back at the top of the agenda, where it should have been probably 62 years ago.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend mentioned the schools commissioner. Does he envisage the schools commissioner playing a key role in brokering collaboration between trust schools and others in a local authority area?

Alan Johnson: Yes, as would the local authority.
	We are firmly persuaded that trust schools represent an important step in our ambition to raise standards for all. Good governance allied to effective leadership, high quality teaching and a flexible curriculum need to be a feature of every school. We have listened to the representations of, among others, the Education and Skills Committee. Consequently, we have agreed that, in some circumstances, a new community school could make sense in a specific area.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who is now the Chief Whip—and whose wisdom and sagacity we have all long admired, even before she became Chief Whip—set out in Committee the criteria that we intend to use in determining whether a local authority should be allowed to enter a community school into a competition. We have now tabled amendment No. 42 and new clause 33 to give effect to those commitments.
	The criteria would allow local authorities with an annual performance assessment—APA—score of 4 automatically to enter a community school proposal. There are 11 authorities in that category at present. Conversely, some authorities would not be allowed to enter a community school proposal until their performance improved. That group would comprise authorities with an APA score of 1, and those with an APA score of 2 and either more than 15 per cent. failing schools or fewer than 15 per cent. voluntary and foundation schools or academies for the relevant phase. At present, 10 authorities fall into that group at secondary level.
	The majority of authorities will need to apply for consent. Each case will be considered on its merits, but I would expect to approve requests from local authorities that have an APA score of 3 and either a lower than average percentage of failing schools or a higher than average percentage of voluntary and foundation schools or academies. This presumption would also apply to authorities that have an APA score of 2, a high percentage of voluntary and foundation schools or academies and no failing schools. Some 90 authorities would benefit from this presumption at secondary level.
	For the remaining minority of 40 or so authorities, I would like to make it clear that all applications will be considered on their merits, and that there will be no presumption against consent. In particular, no authority will be ruled out simply because it has no, or only a few, faith schools. I recognise that there is more to diversity than labels and governance structures. Schools may have different curriculum specialisms and different approaches to education that give them a distinct character or ethos. So, while I am committed to retaining the simple, objective test of diversity, as I have just set out, I will consider a much wider range of factors relating to diversity in reaching a decision on whether to give consent for those authorities that want to enter a competition.

Helen Jones: The key here is surely the way in which we define diversity. The Secretary of State has talked about diversity in terms of structures, and he will be aware that I have tabled an amendment that picks up on much of what he has said. It would allow local authorities to satisfy the diversity criteria by maintaining a range of specialisms in their maintained schools. What is the Government's attitude to my amendment?

Alan Johnson: I shall come to that in just a second, if my hon. Friend will be patient.

Angela Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criteria should act as a spur to local authorities not only to develop their strategic capacity, but to deliver excellence in our schools?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has made a crucial point. In places with a long history of failing schools, we really need to galvanise people's attention. These measures will give a real incentive to local authorities in that regard.

Anne Snelgrove: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) was extremely generous when she considered the criteria in Committee and examined the number of local authorities that would be able to enter schools for competitions? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there are now many more, following the representations of Labour Back Benchers?

Alan Johnson: That was as a result of the representations of not only Labour Back Benchers, but the Local Government Association, which is not particularly dominated by members of the Labour party. The LGA made a number of very important points on this matter. We have therefore come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance.

Sarah Teather: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the annual performance assessment relates to the overall performance of a local authority? A council's ability to collect rubbish might not necessarily relate to its ability to run schools.

Alan Johnson: The ability to collect rubbish is very important, but we depend on educational attainment in regard to this particular score.

Tom Levitt: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough(Ms Smith), can the Secretary of State spell out his answer, given that that there is no reason why, five years down the line, every education authority should not be a grade three or grade four, thus effectively relieving him of an obligation to use the veto?

Alan Johnson: That is an important point. If the Bill allows that to take place, it will be beneficial to every Member's constituency, as there are some constituencies that have very good schools but that still have too many failing schools nearby.

John Denham: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the way in which he will approach diversity, as he has extended considerably the number of local authorities that can reasonably expect to be able to enter the competition. Will he confirm that he would expect the adjudicator, in adjudicating on the competition, to take a similar approach to the question of diversity?

Alan Johnson: Yes, the adjudicator will do that, as that will be part of the regulations that we will produce.

Judy Mallaber: Following that last point, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned faith schools, will he specifically instruct the adjudicator that diversity of faith is not one of the criteria in determining whether a local authority has diverse provision or, in a competition, whether a particular school should be allowed to go forward in a particular form?

Alan Johnson: I repeat: the fact that a local authority does not have a faith school, or has few faith schools, would not be a factor for me to veto that application. That would be the case with the schools adjudicator, too, as we would be working from the same regulations. Those factors will be incorporated into regulations that will be made under the proposed new clause. Clearly, this secondary consideration is a more subjective test than the percentage of different categories of school, which remains the prior test. Therefore, it will be for the authority to set out in its application how a new community school would build on existing diversity in the area.
	I assure my hon. Friends who have tabled amendment No. 7, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) who just intervened, that the wider definition of diversity would extend to clause 2. Therefore, there is no need to set out its meaning in the Bill. The arrangements will enable high-performing authorities and those with diverse provision to publish proposals for a new community school. We also want to demonstrate to the weakest and least diverse authorities that they should open up opportunities to other providers, on which my hon. Friends have made points in interventions. It will then be for the schools adjudicator to consider all proposals submitted and to make the final decision on which proposal should be approved.
	We believe that that approach strikes the right balance. We do not accept amendment No. 15, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would allow all local authorities to publish proposals for new community schools. Nor do we accept new clauses 57 and 58 and amendments Nos. 101 and 102, tabled by the official Opposition, which would mean that no local authority would do so. As ever, between those two extremes, we are taking the third and most sensible way. Similarly, amendment No. 111, submitted by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), would prevent all but the best local authorities from proposing new community schools outside competitions. As set out in Committee, we would relax the need for a competition only where there were good reasons for doing so, such as in the case of the amalgamation of an infant and junior school or to facilitate a fresh start in that school.

John Bercow: The Secretary of State referred a few moments ago to regulations that were imminent or to be published in due course, which is something of a legislative hobby horse of mine. Can he tell the House whether those regulations are to be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart? Are they available now in draft form? If so, can we see them? And if not, given their importance and centrality—I ask in the politest possible way—why not?

Alan Johnson: First, they will be subject to the negative procedure. Secondly, we tried hard, as Members who served on the Committee will accept, to get guidance and regulations published in draft form so that they could be scrutinised in Committee. That has not happened, and the hon. Gentleman will know, from the nine years that we have been in the House together, that that does not happen on every Bill. We have tried hard, and we will try hard in relation to those regulations as the Bill goes through the Lords, to make sure that Members have the benefit of that information.

Angela Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor on making the new skeleton admissions code available to the Standing Committee for scrutiny: it helped us greatly to understand how much tougher the protections against bad admission practices would be.
	Amendment No. 41 gives local education authorities an extra duty to ensure
	"fair access to educational opportunity".
	How does my right hon. Friend think that that will work in practice? He skated over it quite quickly at the beginning.

Alan Johnson: I expect it to operate in the context of admissions forums. I hope to say more about that later, but if my hon. Friend thinks that I have not dealt with it adequately, I will allow her to intervene again.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: I will take one more intervention. Then I must make some progress.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he just said that if an infant school and a junior school amalgamated to form a primary school, they would not have to be subject to a competition?

Alan Johnson: Yes. That is the kind of provision that clause 9 makes.

David Willetts: I hope very much that the Secretary of State will join us in making a robust case for the Government's school reforms, and I look forward to working with him on that.
	The Secretary of State just described one of our new clauses, which provides for new schools not to be community schools, as extreme. Will he confirm that our new clause is based on the Government's own schools White Paper, which states:
	"All new schools will be self-governing Foundation, voluntary aided, Trust schools or Academies"?
	When did he decide that the Government's own White Paper was extreme?

Alan Johnson: Last time I was at the Dispatch Box talking about higher education, the hon. Gentleman and his party were supporting a policy that the hon. Member for "Have I Got News For You" recently described as "bonkers". I am pleased that Conservative Members have come down from the planet Zog and engaged in a proper debate about education.
	As part of that debate, let me mention that very few published White Papers end up in a perfect form, so that every chapter and verse and every dot and comma are reflected in the ensuing Bill. The whole point of a White Paper is to precede consultation, and our consultation has been very fruitful—not just the consultation among Labour Members, but consultation with Members in all parts of the House and, as I have said, with the Local Government Association. I believe that there are two extremes, and that as a result of our consultation we have found a perfect third way.
	We believe that the approach I have described is preferable to new clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, which would require a local authority to work up its proposals before knowing whether it would be given permission to enter them. I believe that that could lead to a significant amount of unnecessary work.
	While we accept that there may be a role for new community schools, we do not agree that there should be a mechanism allowing foundation schools to revert to community status. We have included provisions that enable the governing body to remove a trust, and if a foundation school is failing, the local authority will be able to intervene and can, if necessary, close the school and trigger a new competition. For those reasons, we shall resist new clause 23 and amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

Anne Snelgrove: Is this not one of the issues that put clear red water between us and the Opposition? We have examined the strategic role of local education authorities, and have strengthened it. We are bringing trust schools into the family of schools within LEAs. Grant-maintained schools removed money and set school against school; our trust schools will not be like that.

Alan Johnson: I agree. If we examine the strategic role of local authorities in the context of "Every Child Matters", the Green Paper on youth issues and the 14-to-19 agenda, we see an exciting new role for commissioners of education rather than providers, which entrenches the part played by those authorities in a much more meaningful way.

Jon Trickett: My right hon. Friend referred to new clause 23, which I tabled, and to subsequent amendments. Will he confirm that he has just told the House that the move from comprehensive to trust status is an irreversible, one-directional process? A comprehensive school can become a trust school, but once it is a trust school it cannot revert to being a comprehensive.

Alan Johnson: Let me make it absolutely clear: if the governing body of a trust decided that it wanted to leave the trust, only a third of governors would be needed to trigger that process. At least two thirds of governors have to vote in favour of maintaining the trust for it to continue, so there are important safeguards and trigger mechanisms in the system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alan Johnson: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith).

Angela Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that trust schools will not be community schools, and that they will remain comprehensive schools?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; indeed, the only voluntary aided school in my constituency uses banding—and has done so for many years—which is pure comprehensive intake. She has made a really important contribution in dealing with the misapprehension that a trust school will not be a comprehensive school.

Paul Farrelly: rose—

Alan Johnson: I will give way one more time and then make some progress.

Paul Farrelly: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the safeguard concerning the removal of a majority of governors or of a foundation that is not performing. But if he is not going to provide a safeguard concerning the proportion of parents who are elected governors, how can we guarantee that there will be a sufficient proportion of independent governors to trigger the safeguard that he has installed?

Alan Johnson: At least a third of governors will have to be parents, and in the circumstances that my hon. Friend envisages, where there is a majority trust, there would be the parent council. Teachers and the local community would also be represented on the trust. The local authority, moreover, must be represented on the governing body, so I believe that enough safeguards are in place.
	We believe that there needs to be a clear distinction between provider and commissioner in relation to trust schools. Therefore, while it is appropriate that local authorities play a part in trusts, the extent of their role should be limited to 20 per cent. of the membership or voting rights. That is consistent with provisions in local government legislation on local authority involvement in companies. We are therefore resisting amendments Nos. 9 to 11, which would grant local authorities 50 per cent. membership of trusts.
	Of course, the key role of local authorities will be their ability to take strategic decisions about the provision of school places across their area. They will decide, taking on board the views of local people, when new schools are required and how best to use the record capital investment that we are making available through the building schools for the future programme.
	New clause 18, tabled by the Conservatives, would fetter local authorities' discretion by requiring them to establish new schools if certain conditions relating to the number of failing schools or a lack of diversity were met. I am sympathetic to the aim of the new clause—to create more choice for parents—but I do not believe that such a mechanistic approach is appropriate. On new clause 56, also tabled by the Conservatives, I can confirm that there is no surplus places rule that would prevent a local authority from running a competition, or from agreeing proposals to expand a good school, simply because there are more than enough places available. Capital support for authorities is now formula-based and there is no bar to its use, whatever the state of surplus in a given area.

John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State share my anger at the fact that some people have absolutely no choice and have to send their children to a very unsatisfactory school, whereas the rich have an enormous amount of choice? What is he really going to do to narrow that gap?

Alan Johnson: I hesitate before saying that I share the right hon. Gentleman's anger, but I do think it a matter of considerable concern that in all our constituencies—certainly in mine—this lack of choice dogs many constituents. Provisions in the Bill such as free transport will help to provide such choice, but the biggest guarantor of the educational choice and diversity that we want to see is the record levels of investment that we are putting into our schools.
	On new clause 56, which is entitled "Abolition of surplus places rule", as I said, there is no such rule. Let me reaffirm something that my predecessor made clear on Second Reading. No school will be forced to acquire a trust or to become a foundation school. New clauses 21 and 53, proposed by the Conservatives, are designed to place duties on the Secretary of State and local authorities to encourage schools to become trust schools. There is a danger that such statutory duties could lead to an undue amount of pressure being applied. We firmly believe that trust status has to be a decision freely entered into by a governing body. The only exception is for failing schools, where local authorities will be able to use their new intervention powers to force collaboration. However, we do not accept new clause 62, tabled by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), which would allow the Secretary of State to impose a change of foundation status. It has to be a local decision that meets local needs.

David Anderson: On the day after Second Reading, the previous Secretary of State confirmed that schools choosing not to go down the trust route would not be disadvantaged in any way. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that and tell me exactly where in the Bill that is made clear?

Alan Johnson: I can confirm that. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could have a chat afterwards, so I could point to the various clauses that insist that local authority maintained schools receive their funding on exactly the same basis, with the same pay and conditions for teachers, as other schools. There are several additional safeguards. I can happily give my hon. Friend the affirmation that he seeks.
	The role of the schools commissioner will be to provide support and encouragement to schools. New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Reading, East, would establish the schools commissioner as a statutory office. While I agree with the role set out in the new clause, it is not necessary to define every facet directly in the Bill. The different facets have been included in the job description for applicants for the schools commissioner post. I reassure Members that the commissioner's annual report will be made available to both Houses of Parliament and to the Select Committee on Education and Skills.

Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming that the schools commissioner will have a role in reporting regularly both to Parliament and to the Select Committee, but there is an important omission in his predecessor's letter to the Standing Committee, which defined the role. It did not include reference to children with special educational needs. Can my right hon. Friend confirm today that that will also be part of the schools commissioner's remit in ensuring fair admissions?

Alan Johnson: I can confirm that. I am aware that my hon. Friend has had discussions about children with special educational needs. We intend to deal with the matter in a separate tranche of measures, so I can give him the assurance that he seeks.
	Support provided by the schools commissioner and by local authorities may include consultancy advice to groups of parents wishing to set up a new school or to enter a competition, but I cannot accept the strictures of the Conservatives' new clause 22, which could lead to a local authority having to expend considerable resources supporting proposals that would ultimately fail. Our guidance to local authorities in clause 3 sets out a much more proportionate approach for responding to parental demands about the provision of schools.
	On the important matter of safeguards, my predecessor said on Second Reading that there would be
	"strong safeguards to ensure that all trusts operate in the best interest of children. All trusts will be charitable, and I will issue guidance to prevent the acquisition of inappropriate trusts."
	She added that
	"perhaps the most important safeguard will be the common sense of parents and governing bodies. They will decide whether it is in a school's interest to adopt a particular trust."—[ Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1464-65.]
	Draft guidance was sent to members of the Committee on 20 April and is available in the Library. First, all trusts must meet the legal requirements set out in the Bill; that is, they must be incorporated charities. Secondly, there must be adequate consultation. If a governing body has not consulted, or has not properly taken into account the representations received, the local authority may refer its decision to the schools adjudicator.
	Thirdly, proposals must set out evidence that the trust will contribute to raising standards at the school and will promote community cohesion. The local authority may refer the decision to the schools adjudicator if it believes that the trust will have a negative impact on standards. The ability of a local authority to refer proposals to the adjudicator is an important safeguard. We cannot therefore accept amendments Nos. 105 to 108, by which the Conservatives seek to remove that power to refer.

David Chaytor: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether a local authority will have the power to refer to the adjudicator a case where it thinks that the trust may not be able to fulfil its duty to promote social cohesion?

Alan Johnson: I think that I have set out the reasons for the local authority to refer to the schools adjudicator. They include standards and whether parents have been properly consulted and whether that consultation has been listened to. The schools adjudicator must take into account community cohesion in making decisions. The fourth point that I was coming to is that trust members—

Nadine Dorries: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alan Johnson: I am never going to get to the fourth point. I will give way.

Nadine Dorries: If a school were not performing as well as it should but felt that it could improve standards by embracing trust schools status, and if a local authority's objection to that school's proposal was that it should not become a trust school because of the prevailing standards in the school, what would the adjudicator do?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not go into hypothetical situations. The whole point is that the local authority can refer and the schools adjudicator will make the decision. That is a very important safeguard.
	Fourthly, trust members and proposed trustees must not be involved in activities that may be considered inappropriate for children and young people—for example, those associated with tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment and alcohol—or that could bring the school into disrepute. Fifthly, regulations will disqualify specific categories of people from being trustees. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a reserve power to remove and to appoint individual trustees.
	Sixth in this list of safeguards is the fact that trust schools will remain local authority maintained schools, with the budget delegated to the governing body, not to the trust. The trust's functions will be to appoint governors to the school and to hold assets on trust for the school. The Bill will place new protections around the disposal of assets held by foundations.
	I am adding a seventh safeguard: I confirm for those hon. Members who have raised the matter with me that trust schools will be inspected by Ofsted in the same way as other publicly funded schools. Ofsted will introduce a number of changes to school inspection to capture the contribution of trusts to their schools. It will add specific references to trusts in the self-evaluation form—the basis on which the new school inspections will be undertaken. The changes will require trust schools to identify their status and to describe their distinctive aims and special features. Inspectors would use that information as the starting point in assessing a trust's contribution to the school's overall performance.
	The framework for school inspection already provides opportunity for inspectors to examine and to comment on a trust's impact on the leadership and management of a school, and thereby on all other aspects of the school's work. However, to make that explicit, Ofsted will amend the guidance on conducting the inspection to include a requirement for inspectors to assess the impact of governors appointed by a trust on the school's work.

Nick Raynsford: I am appreciative of the many safeguards that my right hon. Friend outlines. There has been a significant movement in that respect, but I put it to him that a slightly cumbersome structure will be put in place. If Ofsted, in carrying out the very welcome inspection that he confirms will now cover trust schools, and indeed trusts, uncovers grounds for concern about a trust's performance, it is not clear to me what mechanism will ensure that the trust is brought to an end. How will an alternative mechanism be put in place to ensure that the school is properly managed in future?

Alan Johnson: The important points are the Secretary of State's powers and the obligation on the governing body to respond to the Ofsted report. A combination of all the powers, now set out in nine different safeguards, will allow us to meet the concerns that my right hon. Friend and others have raised with us.

Martin Salter: What on earth were my right hon. Friend's predecessors thinking when they considered a regime in which the Charity Commission would have been the regulatory body for trust schools?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend asks an impossible question: I cannot say what previous Ministers were thinking. The Charity Commission has an important role as one of the safeguards, but it is not the only safeguard. The fact that the schools will be registered charitable trusts means that the commission has to have an input. The point that he has raised consistently is that that is not enough of a safeguard to meet the real fears that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had about inappropriate trusts, and I have set out in detail some real safeguards that I hope will meet their concerns.

Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)? Is he saying that trust schools will be inspected to the same standards that will apply to local authority schools? The White Paper said that a failing school would be given a year to turn itself around, but did he consider that extreme?

Alan Johnson: No. My hon. Friend mixes two different points. Trust schools will be subject to the same regime, but with the added safeguards that I have described to meet the concerns about inappropriate trusts. We also want to be able to turn around failing schools in 12 months, which at present takes on average 21 months. When we came to power, it took 24 months, but it is still too long. The measures in the Bill to turn failing schools around more quickly are accepted by every contributor to the debate.

Robert Wilson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that trust schools will not have to pay for inspections by Ofsted, as some other independent schools have to do?  [ Interruption. ]

Alan Johnson: As my hon. Friends point out, the problem with that question is that trust schools will not be independent schools. The Ofsted regime for trust schools will be exactly the same as that for any other local authority schools.
	As a further safeguard, the schools commissioner will hold a detailed record of all proposals relating to trusts and make it available via the departmental website. That will allow a school interested in acquiring a trust to access information about a particular trust and to follow up any questions with the school or trust in question.

Barbara Keeley: On the point about turning failing schools around, a school in my constituency had to be put on special measures, but has now improved its teaching standards from 36 per cent. to 94 per cent. in 12 months. Ofsted said that that was one of the fastest turnarounds it had seen. The school had a lot of problems, but my constituents have seen real improvements.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. All hon. Members want to see such schools turned around as quickly as possible, and she confirms that it can be done.

Angela Watkinson: The Secretary of State has mentioned all the safeguards relating to Ofsted inspections. What safeguards exist to ensure the consistency of Ofsted teams? Visits to schools by some teams are very positive experiences, but on occasions an Ofsted team has a destructive effect on the school and its community.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Lady raises some important issues that have been considered as part of the review of Ofsted, which is of course responsible to Her Majesty's inspectorate. I accept that important issues need to be addressed, but they fall outside this Bill and are not specifically related to the point that I am making about Ofsted being a new and added safeguard to meet the concerns that people have about trusts.
	We believe that such a record, combined with the safeguards I have outlined, is preferable to the formal register of approved trusts that would be required by new clause 25, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats; by new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friends; and by amendment No. 96. Allowing schools to choose a trust partner only from a register would fetter the freedom of governing bodies to decide what is best for their schools, in light of their individual circumstances. It would lead to additional bureaucracy and delay, especially when schools were considering local, community-based trusts that would not benefit from a centralised process for formal approval.

Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the website to which he has referred will be updated regularly, with trusts being entered in such a way that people accessing the site will be able to regard it as a register?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a nice try, and I agree that that website, like all websites, should be updated regularly. It is an informal focal point for the provision of information. He might try to call it a register, but I would not.

Meg Hillier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two city academies—the Mossbourne and the Petchey academies—have been set up, in my constituency and in the neighbouring area of Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, by trusts connected with two Hackney boys who made good? So far, those trusts have shown no interest in running schools in other parts of the country. They are Hackney focused, and we in Hackney welcome that.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my two weeks as Secretary of State, Mossbourne is the only school that I have been able to visit so far. I confirm everything that she says about that excellent school.
	The former Minister for Schools committed to include in the Bill a requirement for all trusts to advance education and to promote community cohesion. Government amendments Nos. 43 to 47 make good that commitment. We want there to be no doubt that trust schools, like any other maintained school, will have a role in developing in pupils an understanding and appreciation of the values of others. They will provide equal opportunities for students from different backgrounds and encourage strong and positive relationships between them.

Margaret Moran: I very much welcome the promotion of community cohesion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since 1997, there have been more failing schools than successful ones in my constituency, and that the LEA has been very poor? The fact that parents are choosing to send their children to schools outside Luton is dividing the community and creating poor community cohesion. Will he say more about how community cohesion will be promoted as a result of this Bill?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend repeats what has been people's experience in too many parts of the country. The Bill is aimed at dealing with the problem that she describes. The term "community cohesion" has been used by the Home Office in the past, and it has a specific definition. We believe that that definition sums up what local authorities should aim for in their work with schools and governors to deal with the problem that she identifies.

Peter Soulsby: Does the Secretary of State accept that fragmenting the governance of schools is a risky enterprise, especially in areas of considerable faith diversity? Is it not likely to imperil community cohesion to a significant extent?

Alan Johnson: No, I do not accept that. We are talking not about fragmenting governing bodies, but about increasing the variety of schools. We want schools in the local authority family to have much more responsibility, and to make decisions for themselves. An exciting agenda is emerging from the proposals that will allow us to address some of the problems described by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). It will not make those problems worse.

David Chaytor: I accept the argument that trust schools should have a duty to promote community cohesion but, given local authorities' new strategic powers, why is my right hon. Friend resistant to the idea that they should have a similar duty?

Alan Johnson: Local authorities already have that duty. The point made earlier was that a failure to promote community cohesion should be one of the reasons for referring a trust to the schools adjudicator. The Bill contains three such reasons, and I believe that it covers the waterfront in that respect. In no way do the proposals detract from local authorities' responsibility to promote community cohesion and social inclusion.
	Finally, Government amendments Nos. 70 to 75 and 84 to 86 are purely drafting changes to ensure that all references in that part of the Bill are consistent. I have tried to do justice to the scope of the amendments in this important group. The changes we are making to define a strategic role for local authorities, to bring parents to the heart of the system and to encourage innovation and new providers are, as I have explained, central to our desire to improve outcomes for children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
	We believe that the process of debate in which we have been engaged since the White Paper has strengthened our proposals. Our amendments on community schools and community cohesion represent further improvements, and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to accept them.

Nick Gibb: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his appointment. He is a sure pair of hands as well as a former higher education Minister and will be adept at resisting pressure from the Labour rebels on the left. On the Opposition Benches at least, we wish him well in his appointment and his new responsibilities.
	We had a good and interesting Committee; it was an unusual one for such a controversial and high-profile Bill, as its broad principles were supported by the Opposition. Nevertheless, some significant differences of view were brought out, on which we tried to amend the Bill, tabling about 219 amendments. As well as fundamental differences over the admissions code, the ban on interviews, home-school contracts, charging for school travel and special schools, some of which we shall debate later, we also had differences of view even about the Bill's broad principles. In short, the Opposition are more Government than the Government in respect of the Bill.
	The new clause and Government amendment No. 42 both relate to the use of the Secretary of State's veto on whether a local authority can propose a new community school in a competition for a new primary or secondary school. It was of course never part of the Government's original vision that a local authority could propose a new community school, which is why, in a speech on the day before the White Paper was published last October, the Prime Minister said:
	"We need to see every local authority moving from provider to commissioner, so that the system acquires a local dynamism responsive to the needs of their communities and open to change and new forms of school provision.
	This will liberate local authorities from too often feeling the need to defend the status quo, so that instead they become the champions of innovation and diversity."
	That was the vision: more diversity among providers of education. But with 63 per cent. of schools already community schools, how will it help to create that diversity if we simply pile on more community schools?

Meg Hillier: The hon. Gentleman seems to be contradicting himself. He suggests that every community school is homogenous and that there is only one type. Community, trust, foundation and voluntary-aided schools are different from each other and within each category. Surely we should welcome that diversity on both sides of the House.

Nick Gibb: That is one form of the diversity that we want, but we also want diversity in structure that will help to create an even more diverse range of schools, which was, I thought, the objective set out in the White Paper. I thought, too, that it was the original judgment of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about what was best for the education system. Indeed, on page 116, the White Paper states:
	"We will also remove the right for local authorities to publish their own proposals for the establishment of new community schools."
	That was their judgment; it is the judgment of the Government and we share that view on the Conservative Benches.

Nick Raynsford: Can the hon. Gentleman reconcile the clear statement that his party is opposed to giving local authorities discretion to reach a judgment about what is best for their area with the views being put about by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who speaks for his party on local government, and pretends that a Conservative Government would do just that?

Nick Gibb: This is not an anti-local authority issue, as I will come on to say. Under the White Paper and the Bill, it is still possible for local authorities to propose foundation schools. The issue is not about being anti-local authority or being prescriptive in that respect—I am defending the Government's policy again. The purpose behind the White Paper is to create diversity in the system, but the concessions that the Government have made will hamper that original judgment.

Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman and his party were ever to be in power—God forbid—he would have to learn that Governments need to listen. Is it not important that, having listened, we recognise that community schools play an important role in diversity of provision? It is important that that reflects local need and not just what he wants.

Nick Gibb: Of course, parents will initially set out the determination to have one of the new schools. Those who really want more parental choice should realise that the provisions in the Bill that encourage parents to set up new schools and new providers to come in are the way to create a much more responsive education system—responsive to parents, not just to local authorities.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend understand why Labour Members seem to want to leave the rich with a complete choice of many good schools and to offer no choice to those without sufficient money?

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend makes a good point and his pertinent intervention has encapsulated the history of education reform over the past 40 years.

Meg Hillier: I am driven to rise to my feet again. In Hackney in my constituency, we have a new city academy, to which the Secretary of State referred. It is fully comprehensive and the rich, whom the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned, want their children to get into it. It is full of children from a diverse range of backgrounds, including poor backgrounds, and is representative of my constituency. That is the sort of school that Labour Members want to see more of. I challenge the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) to say whether he really wants that as well.

Nick Gibb: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. That is precisely what Conservative Members want. We want to see more academies such as the Petchey academy in her constituency, more foundation schools with foundations, more trust schools, and more voluntary-aided schools. We want the kind of diversity in our constituencies that she wants in her constituency, and which the Secretary of State wants too.

Paul Farrelly: Clearly, the Bill not only proposes a new form of school, but sets some limits. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in supporting the Government's policy and the Bill, the Conservative party subscribes to the principle that there should be no further selection by academic ability?

Nick Gibb: The Conservative party has already set out its position and there will be a debate on admissions tomorrow. We have said that an incoming Conservative Government would not see a return to wholesale selection across the board. We will not see new grammar schools and secondary moderns being established outside areas that do not already have grammar schools.
	The White Paper contained a sensible set of proposals, but then Lord Kinnock intervened and 53 Labour rebels eventually went on to vote against the Bill. In their alternative White Paper, they said:
	"local authorities should retain the power to decide whether to function solely as commissioners, and not providers, of education. There should be no outright ban on new schools being developed as local authority community schools."
	That looming Labour rebellion between the publication of the White Paper last October and the publication of the Bill at the end of February this year resulted in the famous concession letter from the then Secretary of State to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee. In that letter, the Secretary of State said:
	"there may be occasions where a community school might best meet local needs. In such cases, if a local authority wished to enter a community school in a competition—and the Secretary of State felt that there was merit in such a proposal—the competition would be judged by the Adjudicator...In judging the competition, the Adjudicator would take into account the track record of the local authority in terms of educational performance, the degree of diversity in the local...system and parental preference."
	That represents a complete change of view—a change that was not based on the judgment of the Prime Minister or the then Secretary of State as to what would best serve the interests of this country in creating a high quality education system, but which was occasioned by problems in the Labour party. The change of policy was all about internal Labour party management.

Gordon Marsden: I know that it suits the hon. Gentleman's perspective to present what happened as an enormous concession to a particular group of Labour Members. However, will he reflect on the fact that the letter was sent to the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee on the basis of the report that that Committee produced? Will he also take into account the fact that the then Secretary of State quite rightly took action on the matters that we discovered and discussed and then presented in our report?

Nick Gibb: Select Committees bring out reports all the time and the Government respond to them, but such reports do not always result in changes to a Bill after a White Paper has been published. What happened was due to the management of the Labour party.
	It was not even the case that the proposals had to be changed to get the Bill through the House. Conservative Members always said that they would support the Bill, and we did, which was why it received its Second Reading with a majority of 343. The Government claim that the concessions were made as a result of consultation on the White Paper. They will cite bodies such as the National Union of Teachers and the Local Government Association, but those bodies were always opposed to measures to take away local authorities' ability to establish community schools, regardless of the White Paper. The process thus had nothing to do with consultation.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the NUT is still entirely opposed to any aspect of the Bill that gives greater power to parents to play their part in their children's education and insists that the power should lie in the hands of the NUT and local authorities?

Nick Gibb: My right hon. Friend makes the point well enough. It is very much a producer-capture situation.
	If the Government are claiming that the consultation took place with MPs, we should consider the make-up of the House of Commons. We must assume that all Labour Members, except the 100 who signed the early-day motion, and all Conservative Members supported the proposals to remove the right of local authorities to propose new community schools.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the fact that the Members who signed the alternative White Paper were all from one party. At the same time, does he accept that the Local Government Association, which set out its opposition to the proposals that he is endorsing, represents all parties and, indeed, has a Conservative majority?

Nick Gibb: There is a diverse range of views in the Conservative party and we are proud of that fact.

Anne Snelgrove: On diverse views, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) tabled interesting and informative amendments in Committee, most of which we were happy to vote down and some of which were withdrawn. Those amendments showed that Conservative Members, or at least a considerable number of them, look forward to the return of grammar schools. What is the view of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about the split in his party on the Bill?

Nick Gibb: There are cross-party views on all kinds of education issues. I am speaking for the Opposition, yet defending the White Paper and Bill of the Prime Minister who leads the hon. Lady's party. Let us not talk about splits in the Conservative party when she can see splits all over the Labour Benches. Her point is irrelevant to the important principles behind the Bill.
	The Government's excuse about consultation is a smokescreen. In reality, the concessions were made for reasons of internal Labour party management, rather than as part of a considered approach to education reform. We have thus tabled amendments Nos. 101 and 102 and new clauses 53 and 58, which would put back into the Bill the original vision that the Prime Minister set out with clarity, passion and sincerity on 24 October.
	New clauses 53 and 58 would simply insert in the Bill the wording used in the White Paper. New clause 58 comes from page 116 of the White Paper and new clause 53 is taken from paragraph 2.5 on page 25, which says:
	"We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust."
	Throughout our time in Committee, Conservative Members tried to restore the Bill to a form that corresponded to the original vision in the White Paper. As such, if the Government do not accept new clause 53, we hope that it will be possible to press the principles that it sets out to a Division.
	The concessions made in the then Secretary of State's letter of 6 February could have provided ample reason for the official Opposition to vote against the Bill's Second Reading on 15 March. Such a vote would have been decisive, because it would have killed the Bill. However, we took the view—and we still hold it—that half a loaf is better than none. The Conservative party is serious about raising the quality of education in our schools. It is unacceptable that, according to the National Audit Office, 23 per cent. of secondary schools are underperforming and a similar proportion is probably coasting. On page 138 of the regulatory impact assessment, the Government consider the four school grading categories used by Ofsted—excellent, good, satisfactory and poor—and say:
	"'Satisfactory' is no longer good enough—as that may mean that some children will not achieve their full potential."
	We agree. We have moved into a global jobs market, in which prosperity for individuals and the country depends on the acquisition of a high-quality knowledge-based education, and that is why we take education reform seriously.
	It is not just a matter of economics. A thorough education enables us to enjoy life to the full and to appreciate and contribute to our culture. The Bill, with all its flaws and concessions, is still a step in the right direction. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, when the Government do the right thing, we will support them. The concept of trust schools is right. On Second Reading, we accepted the concession that local authorities could, subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, propose a community school as part of a competition for a new school. It was an unnecessary concession, but we accepted it rather than lose the Bill. Under the White Paper proposals, local authorities can, as I said earlier, propose a foundation school. This is not an anti-local authority issue—it is about creating a more diverse range of provision. We therefore listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the then Minister for Schools, when she clarified in Committee when the Secretary of State would or would not exercise the veto. We did not want her clarification to amount to further unnecessary concessions to the Labour left. We wanted to be sure that the principle behind the use of the veto was in line with the principle established by the letter from the previous Secretary of State and by the Government's response to the Select Committee report. In that response, which was published on 6 February, three weeks before the publication of the Bill, the Government said:
	"Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school...the Secretary of State will not normally intervene."
	We are happy that the concessions are in line with those principles.

Andrew Gwynne: I wish to declare my interest as a member of Tameside metropolitan borough council, and to draw to the attention of the House the fact that my wife is the council cabinet member responsible for services to children and young people. Returning to the role of local education authorities, it is not inconceivable that a very good local authority with an excellent track record of providing community schools should be responsible for a diverse group of schools, whether foundation schools, city academies or trust schools. Under the provisions, might it not want to propose a community school, because that is precisely what the community wants?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is why we are not averse to supporting the Bill with those concessions in it. The main purpose of the White Paper is to try to create a greater diversity of schools throughout the country. A total of 63 per cent. of schools are community schools, so we will not create diversity if every new school is yet another community school. With school rolls and population demand falling, the number of new schools is lower than we might otherwise wish. On 20 April, the then Minister for Schools said in Committee that a local authority with an annual performance assessment of 4—the highest level—could propose a community school without consent. There are 11 such authorities. She said, too, that the worst local authorities with an APA of 1 would never be able to propose a new community school. For the remainder, it would depend on the diversity of provision in the area and the quality of the schools that they provide.

Andrew Turner: I share my hon. Friend's satisfaction that the Bill has been amended as it has. Is it not the adjudicator who will make the decision, and will the adjudicator not sing to tune of the Secretary of State, if not of No. 10, in deciding whether to go for a bog-standard community school or one of the new diverse schools that the Prime Minister clearly wants?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I wish I had made myself. When there is a competition in which the local authorities take part, they are no longer the judge, the matter is referred to the adjudicator, and it is for him to decide whether the school will go ahead. I hope very much that he will err on the side of diversity in making those decisions.

Jon Trickett: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State, who offered a welcome clarification of the principle of diversity. He clearly stated that diversity would be defined by him and by the adjudicator to cover ethos, not necessarily governance. That is a major shift by the Government—a major clarification. Will the hon. Gentleman still vote with the Government on Third Reading? Will he not join us now and try to defeat the Bill?

Nick Gibb: People are more interested in how the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will vote tomorrow than in how the Opposition will vote. We have adopted one of the principles from the Minister's clarification. Where local authorities do not have a diverse range of schools, or where more than 15 per cent. of schools in a local authority area are of poor quality, our new clause 18 would provide that a local authority must publish a notice under clause 7 inviting proposals for a new school. Where the range of schools in a local authority area is of poor quality, it is unacceptable that those schools can languish year after year, providing a substandard education to our children. Children have only one chance of an education, and we cannot stand idly by while local authorities preside over such provision.

Diana Johnson: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a comment that he made about local education authorities that have an annual performance assessment of 1? He said that they would be not allowed to submit an application for a community school. That is not correct. My LEA, unfortunately, would fall into the category of having an APA of 1, but with the strides that it is making, it may well have the opportunity to make such an application in future.

Nick Gibb: Of course. I meant that if the local education authority ceased to have that poor rating of 1 it would fall into another category, but if it remained in category 1, it would never be able to establish a community school.

Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there can be a diverse range of ethoses and styles of schools, even when they are all community schools? Does he also accept that a community school such as Aldercar in my constituency, which used to have an A to C attainment level of 19 per cent. and now has one of 60 per cent., can pull itself up by its bootstraps with an excellent head, an excellent team and an excellent supportive local authority, but remain a community school, although with a specialism in languages? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is possible?

Nick Gibb: Of course I accept that. The then Minister for Schools told us that the plural of ethos is ethoi, so we all learn something in Committee. If we want to accelerate the diversity of ethoi and school provision, the best way to achieve that is through a diversity of structural approaches to schools. Even after the Bill has been in force for several years, there will still be plenty of community schools and they will still probably be the majority type of school in Britain.

Helen Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the need to tackle failing schools, which is shared in all parts of the House. However, he seems to be making a simplistic link by saying that the only way to improve schools is for them to be something other than community schools. May I remind him what the Select Committee found in its inquiry? It stated:
	"No causal link has been demonstrated between external partners and the success of a school, or between the independence of a school from local authority control and its success."
	Is the matter not far more complicated than he portrays? The success of schools depends on good heads and good teachers. It is not necessarily related to the type of school.

Nick Gibb: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. Conservative Members have never said that we can solve all the problems in our state education system by passing this Bill and introducing a variety of structural provision. There are a huge number of issues related to the curriculum, ethos, discipline, quality of teaching and quality of heads. The variety of structural provision is only one element, but let us not deny ourselves that element, because it is important.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Education and Skills Committee and signed up to the report quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). When he was a member of our Committee, he was not known for giving the impression that all the schools up and down our country were underperforming, miserable places where children do not get a proper chance at education. I thought that he agreed that many fine community schools do a very good job for their children. Is he not doing himself a disservice by making a speech redolent of the Chris Woodhead philosophy, rather than the philosophy that he held only a few months ago?

Nick Gibb: I still hold the philosophy to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In my time as shadow education spokesman, I have visited many good community schools and state schools around the country. I am not talking about all schools; I am talking about the 23 per cent. of schools to which the National Audit Office has referred, and the similar percentage of coasting schools. We must tackle those schools.
	Clauses 3 and 7 are significant, and they are the principal reasons why we support this Bill. They enable parents to make representations to the local authority calling on it to establish a new school because they are dissatisfied by the quantity or quality of existing provision. We hope that over the next few years we will see the establishment of a large number of trust schools with greater autonomy and independence in their day-to-day running.
	The Thomas Telford city technology college in Telford, Shropshire, is not a trust school—it is a CTC, which is similar to the academy model—but the principle of autonomy in the day-to-day running of the school is similar. The principal of that school, Sir Kevin Satchwell, has told me that one of the great advantages of CTC status is that heads do not have to attend interminable meetings with the local authority, which means that they can stay in school and focus on raising standards. That is why at the Thomas Telford school, which has an intake of all abilities and in which 11 per cent. of pupils are entitled to free school meals, 100 per cent. of pupils achieve not only five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, but 12 or more GCSEs or equivalent at grades A* to C. Even when one strips out the GNVQs, it is still the best performing comprehensive school in the country—as I have said, 100 per cent. of pupils achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and Maths. That is what autonomy can achieve, which is why the Conservative party is so serious about the benefits of the Bill and so excited about the prospect of hundreds of trust schools being established in the years ahead.
	It became clear in Committee that the Government, too, are serious about promoting new trust schools and helping parents.

Frank Dobson: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the school in Telford, does he believe that if every school in and around Telford had similar status, they would all achieve the 100 per cent. ratings that he has discussed?

Nick Gibb: That would be an exaggeration. The Thomas Telford school has high-quality leadership, but it would help if schools were given autonomy. Some 66 per cent. of pupils in schools with CTC status achieve five or more good GCSEs at grades A* to C, which, while it is not the same as the 100 per cent. rating at the Thomas Telford school, is significantly higher than the national average and higher than the average for community schools.
	In Committee, it became clear how much in favour of promoting such schools the Government are. Paragraph 30 of the draft guidance on clause 3 states:
	"Where the level of parental demand for a new school appears to be considerable and where a group of parent promoters come forward then the local authority should offer help and support for parents in developing their proposals."
	Paragraph 34 says:
	"The kind of material help and support which local authorities should offer includes dedicated consultancy support".
	Paragraph 35 goes on to say:
	"In helping to develop and facilitate proposals local authorities should be flexible in earmarking potential sites and creative in removing capital barriers."
	We regard that guidance as very helpful, which is why we incorporated it into new clause 22.
	I cited those paragraphs not to annoy those on the left who believe that local authorities should run all schools directly, and that all schools should be the same homogenous bog standard, but to assure my hon. Friends—

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Gibb: Not at the moment.
	I want to assure my hon. Friends that this is a Bill and a policy that we can and should support, not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect—but because it goes a long way towards implementing an education model that helps parents and non-profit and charitable groups to establish independent-type schools within the state sector without fees. It is the very model that has formed the basis of Conservative education policy in recent years, and which we believe will lead to higher standards and a higher quality of education in our schools.
	To push that principle a stage further, new clause 19 proposes that where parents of 100 or more children of school age in a local authority area make representations to a local authority for a new school, the local authority must—not may—publish a notice under clause 7 inviting proposals for a new school. That would add to parent power and, as in the American model, make involvement in the community real and effective.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend talks about parent consultation. Where a school changes status to, say, a trust school, is he equally in favour of parents being formally consulted through a ballot? We all know that "consultation" is a weasel word that can often be skewed in the wrong way.

Nick Gibb: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I think that those are matters for the governing body of a school. I would be opposed to any formal intervention that required a ballot.

Ian Stewart: rose—

Paul Truswell: rose—

Nick Gibb: I am going to make some progress, if I may.
	Our amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107 would make it easier for a foundation school to become a trust school and easier for a trust school to enable the foundation to appoint the majority of governors of a foundation school. The amendments would prevent the local authority from stopping or delaying the proposals by referring them to the adjudicator. It would simply be a matter for the governing body of the school. We want to make it as easy as possible for governing bodies of schools to create trust schools. The amendments would prevent local authorities hostile to the whole concept of trust schools from being able to scupper the proposals.
	The amendments contrast sharply with new clauses 25 and 26, tabled by the Liberals. New clause 26 would prevent a trust school from having a majority of its governors from the trust. Being able to appoint a majority of governors is a key component of the reforms in the Bill. Without that possibility, it is unlikely that any charitable trust or group of parents would want to establish such schools, as the Liberals well understand; that is why they tabled the new clause. They are fundamentally opposed to reform on the model established by the Bill. For them, localism extends only as far as the local council, not down to the level of the local school, which they want to remain under the direct day-to-day control of local councillors.
	Similarly, new clause 25 is a reflection of the Liberals' hostility to the reforms. It would require the school commissioner to establish a list of potential trustees—a bureaucratic and unnecessary impediment.

Sarah Teather: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not keener on that new clause. It would make it easier for schools to become trust schools, because instead of having to go through the whole bureaucratic process of checking the guidance themselves, they would have a ready-made list.

Nick Gibb: I do not accept that. As we witnessed in Committee, all the Liberal amendments are designed to thwart the reforms.
	Paragraph 13 of the Government's draft guidance, entitled "Decision Makers Guidance on Acquisition of Trusts", sets out detailed guidelines that schools should follow, including unacceptable types of industry, which the funders of a charitable trust should avoid. They include, as the Secretary of State said, tobacco, gambling, adult entertainment and alcohol. That guidance should be enough for the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who tabled new clause 48, which would establish a register of approved institutions.
	There comes a point when one has to rely on the good judgment of people in decision-making positions. No governing body will acquire a trust funded by Ann Summers. Governors are as keen as, if not keener than the hon. Member for Bury, North to protect and enhance the reputation of their school. With all the other protections that the Bill contains about the character of individual charitable trustees, enhanced by Government amendment No. 46 and the specific requirements of Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44 that the purpose of a foundation must be the advancement of education, I believe that new clause 48 over-eggs the pudding and is designed mainly to thwart the reforms.
	Thwarting the reforms is the main purpose of rebel new clauses 16 and 17, which seek a ballot before any school can become a foundation school. Doubtless the hon. Members whose names are attached to those new clauses will argue that their proposals simply the follow the model that the previous Conservative Government used for grant-maintained schools—and they would be right. However, most Conservative Members now believe that the requirement for a full-scale ballot before a school could become a grant-maintained school was probably a mistake.

Gordon Marsden: Does the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to accept the principle of the ballot have anything to do with the fact that, outside London and the south-east, few ballots for grant-maintained schools were won?

Nick Gibb: That is not true. I oppose the ballot because in the case of grant-maintained schools, it led to the politicisation of the process, with local left-wing groups and others who opposed the concept mobilising to prevent the change.
	The prospect of fighting such a campaign will put off many, or at least some, potential governors, especially people who become governors simply because they are interested in running a school and providing education and have no interest in politics or engaging in a political campaign with the hon. Member for Bury, North.
	Despite such hurdles, some 668 schools became grant maintained, but that was out of approximately 3,500 secondary schools. In 1998, grant-maintained schools became foundation schools. Their results, compared with those of community schools, show how much more successful they are. In 2004-05, 38 per cent. of pupils in community schools achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, compared with 44 per cent. in foundation schools, 49 per cent. in voluntary-aided schools and 66 per cent. in city technology colleges. That answers a question that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) asked earlier.
	The amendments try to place in front of foundation schools the same hurdles that applied to grant-maintained schools to frustrate the policy direction of the Bill. If the new clauses are pressed to a vote, I urge hon. Members of all parties to reject them.

Frank Dobson: When the old Etonian Leader of the Opposition goes around saying that he wishes to hand power to parents, why is he not willing to give them the power to vote for or against a trust?

Nick Gibb: Because the ballots would not be used for that. They would be used by people such as the right hon. Gentleman, who will set out to oppose any initiatives, even those of parents, which clause 3 allows. He will be out there, campaigning against those parents.
	We are worried about some of the comments that the Secretary of State made about ballots. In his "Dear Colleague" letter, which someone helpfully sent me, he stated:
	"We have also ensured that when a school decides to join a Trust it has to consult its parents, through a ballot if necessary".
	The Minister for Schools repeated that on the "Today" programme this morning. Nothing in the Bill provides for that, the draft guidance contains nothing about it and there is no wording to that effect in the draft regulations. I was reassured by the Secretary of State's comments, in response to my intervention, that he will not include that wording in the guidance, and that he will not refer to an indicative ballot in the regulations.
	I was also reassured that it is not the Government's intention that a consultation process would be regarded as inadequate simply on the ground that an indicative ballot of parents had not taken place, thus presenting grounds for a local authority to refer the proposal to a schools adjudicator. If it had been the Government's intention to make reference to an indicative ballot in either the guidance or the regulations, it would have been very damaging to the successful implementation of the proposals.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Gibb: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. I am just coming to the end of my speech.

Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Gibb: I am sorry, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Our amendments and new clauses are designed to make the structural changes in the Bill more effective. Unlike the amendments tabled by the Liberals and the Labour left, they are supportive amendments designed to take the Bill back towards the original vision of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. They are designed to increase the quality of the education offered in our schools, and I urge hon. Members to support new clause 53 if the Government refuse to accept it.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), and I want to engage with some of his arguments. After sitting on these Benches for nine years, I want to make one last effort to impress by speaking to these amendments and new clauses. After all, we now have a new Chief Whip.
	I want to speak to a series of radical, reforming and modernising amendments tabled in the very best traditions of new Labour. After all, new Labour started around the principle of one person, one vote. I remember helping to organise the Prime Minister's internal election campaign in Yorkshire, when he stood for the leadership, and that was very much one of our principles. What is so wrong with one parent, one vote? That is the principle behind new clauses 16, 17 and 23, and I urge those on my Front Bench to resist the forces of conservatism. They must not be hidebound by the past; they must reach out to the future and involve parents in the fullest possible way.
	New clause 16 would allow for a ballot in the case of a community school moving to a foundation school. New clause 17 would allow for a ballot when a local authority proposed to establish a foundation school. New clause 23, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), deals with the situation in which a foundation school might want to revert to being a community school. In the interests of parental choice and freedom, that should surely be a possibility, and a ballot would be a means of legitimising the process.
	I have listened carefully to the arguments against ballots, and some of them have shocked me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said recently in  The Sunday Times:
	"The governors have to make a decision. The school decides whether to be a trust. If it does, there has to be consultation with parents. But turning that into a ballot strikes us as unnecessary."
	My right hon. Friend has a proud tradition of advocating democracy in trade unions. Let us therefore imagine that quote, but with the following words substituted: "The union executive has to make a decision. The union executive decides whether there is to be a strike. If it does, there has to be consultation with members. But turning that into a ballot strikes us as unnecessary." I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend—he is a rising star and I am sure that he has further to rise—but when he put forward his argument for rejecting ballots, it was not his finest hour.

Alan Johnson: The rule books of most unions—including mine—state that there must be a ballot of members before a strike can take place. My union rule book also gives a great deal of discretion to the executive to decide on other measures. Indeed, an argument is taking place at the moment in one trade union in the higher education sector about whether the executive should put a pay offer to a ballot or agree to it. It is up to the executive to decide in all those circumstances. My hon. Friend is right in regard to strike action, but wrong in regard to many other aspects of trade union law.

John Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I think that a school's decision to become a foundation is a fundamental one. It is interesting to consider some of the other arguments. It has been stated that a ballot would be too expensive, and the Minister for Schools has said that it would be unnecessary bureaucracy. A consultation will involve a good deal of expense, possibly more than a one parent, one vote ballot.

Ann Winterton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that a consultation costs nothing if not many people are consulted. The recent so-called consultation about the future of a school in my constituency, to which I referred earlier, was almost meaningless. However, while I disagree with him on that point, I assure him that I agree with some of his other points.

John Grogan: I thank the hon. Lady for that. Clearly, these radical, reforming, modernising ideas are spreading like wildfire across the House, even as we speak.
	Ministers have said that there might be ballots in certain circumstances. In some cases, they would simply be inappropriate. However, where there was a significant body of opinion, according to one Minister, there might be a case for a ballot. There is a real possibility of sheer confusion, with governing bodies not knowing whether they are meant to hold a ballot. Will Ministers have guidelines as to how they should hold a ballot, if they decide to hold one? It could be very confusing. Surely it would be much simpler to have ballots in all cases.
	Some people say that such a proposal is designed as a hindrance to the creation of trusts. I must admit that, with the two Front Benches thinking as they do, it is likely that the Bill will carry the House tomorrow, and that there will be trusts. However, the question is: should trusts ultimately be set up by perhaps three or four governors, on a wet December evening, after having engaged in some form of consultation? Would not it be more legitimate to have one parent, one vote?

Barbara Keeley: On that point, I used to be responsible for education in Trafford, which was a complicated authority because it retained grammar schools and had difficult structures. I have been involved in ballots previously in relation to grant- maintained schools and so on. My experience in education suggests to me that the most important thing in such consultations is to involve all those who need to be involved in the change of status of a school—other local schools, schools in other local authority areas and, often, dioceses, learning and skills councils and further education colleges. Just consulting parents, and even a small group of parents, and letting them decide, is not appropriate, as far too many other stakeholders are involved. I believe that these things ought to be settled locally, as there are so many different situations pertaining up and down the country. I think that it is wrong—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has gone beyond the bounds of an intervention.

John Grogan: Many of those stakeholders are, of course, represented on the governing body, which will come to a decision as to whether to make a trust proposal. Clearly, the consultation can be wider. Ultimately, however, the simplest way to decide matters of controversy in our democracy is one person, one vote. A general election is not a hindrance to forming a Government; it is a way of stopping a Government being formed by tanks rolling down Whitehall.

Paul Farrelly: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's amendment, which is a good start. In relation to the necessity of ballots in grammar schools, should their lordships wish to build on his good start—if the amendment carries the House—would he welcome extending a secondary school's ballot to parents of primary feeder schools? That would make the provisions relating to foundations symmetrical with those relating to the removal of grammar schools.

John Grogan: I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks that I have made a good start. Should Ministers want to hold discussions behind the Speaker's Chair about how to improve these proposals, I would be delighted. Now, however, I want to address the Opposition's argument against ballots.
	It is in the finest traditions of the Conservative party over 300 years to try to think of arguments against democracy. It said that we have made a mistake. In the ballots that it held under the Education Reform Act 1988, however, it was interesting how many people voted. On average, in the first two years, 67.5 per cent. voted, and by 1995, 84 per cent. voted. I understand that about 2,000 ballots took place, and more of those rejected the proposals, but a substantial number supported the creation of grant- maintained schools. I think it a little tortuous to suggest that local left-wing elements would take over our democracy. It would be equally ridiculous for Conservative Front-Benchers to suggest that there should not be union ballots for that reason.

Helen Jones: The argument from the Conservative Front Bench seemed to be that parents would be so overwhelmed by all the various types of propaganda that they would be incapable of deciding for themselves. That is an insult to most parents.

John Grogan: I agree. The beauty of one person, one vote is that it does not give the loudest voice the final say, whether that loudest voice be a left-wing element or two or three governors promoting a pet scheme. The beauty of one person, one vote is that everyone, whoever they are, can assess the arguments and—in the privacy of a booth, at home or by means of a postal vote—can vote in the way that they think best. That is a tremendous thing.

Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the heart of the debate. He says that democracy is important. I believe—and I think my hon. Friend shares my view—that democracy has been the greatest force for progress that the world has ever known.
	Does my hon. Friend consider it perverse that a Labour Secretary of State—a Labour Secretary of State!—should propose the establishment of a commissar—sorry, commissioner—who would be able to override the decision of a properly and fully elected local authority? Does he not find that perverse and anti-democratic, as I do?

John Grogan: I do find it sad. I have probably taken up too much of the House's time—[Hon. Members: "More! More!"]—but I want to make one final point.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Grogan: I want to make this final point. Others may have an opportunity to speak later.
	I think that this debate is about the whole nature of public service reform. Both Front Benches seem to argue that public service reform is entirely about involving private interests and different providers in public service. That is a very consumerist view of public service reform. I think there is a view of public service reform that favours the involvement of local people as citizens in deciding models of public service. We are suggesting a modest way of giving all parents the chance to vote—one parent, one vote—when a trust school is proposed. I urge Members on both sides of the House to back our proposals, and I give notice that if the possibility arises, I shall press new clause 16 to a vote.

Sarah Teather: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who made an excellent and funny speech. I shall take up some of his points, but I want to focus on new clause 25, amendment No. 15 and new clause 26, tabled by me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. They contain what are key aspects of principle for us, relating to accountability and the vetting of trusts. Had there been more time, we would have wanted to press all three proposals to the vote in order to test the opinion of the House. However, we are particularly anxious to test the House's opinion on new clause 26.
	As the Secretary of State said earlier, new clause 25—like new clause 48, tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—proposes the establishment of a central register for those eligible to act as trusts, from which schools may then choose. The system would ensure that all on the register had met the basic standards in the guidance mentioned by the Secretary of State earlier in the debate. We like to think of it as an A-list for candidates. It would conform with the basic set of principles—perhaps diversity could be included—but, as is the case with the local party, schools would be able to choose from the list, while feeling confident that it met those basic standards. It would not set new standards. It would include the standards laid down in the Secretary of State's guidance, but we want to link those standards with legislation.
	Unlike the Secretary of State and those on the Conservative Front Bench, we believe that our proposal would make the system easier and simpler, and would remove a burden from schools. Surely if schools know that the basic checks have already been carried out, they can choose between the different ethoi—or whatever the plural of "ethos" is—in the trusts on offer, rather than having to establish whether a particular trust has a particular background. Someone on the trust could have a background in pornography or selling alcohol, or in any of the other examples laid out in the guidance. We are simply trying to establish a safeguard that would make it a lot easier for such schools to know what they are dealing with. The Government should be interested in building confidence in the system and in letting schools know that such checks have already been done.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am not actually sure whether the hon. Lady is speaking in favour of trusts or against them; perhaps she can clarify that point at some stage. Has she considered what is likely to happen in constituencies such as mine? A local company might wish to partner up with a particular school but not with schools in other areas, so it would not want to go on a central register.

Sarah Teather: There is no reason why such a company should not meet the basic standards, or why someone should not check centrally that those standards are being met to enable the school in question to know what they are dealing with. That would take the load off the school, which would not then be required to carry out such checks.
	The point is that all the safeguards laid out earlier by the Secretary of State are contained in guidance—they are not written into the Bill. As I understand it, the concession that he gave earlier concerning Ofsted would also not be included in the Bill; rather, guidance would simply be issued. So despite all the concessions that have been made, there are still no such safeguards in the Bill or in regulations. The regulatory framework remains that given to charities under the Charity Commission. As the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) pointed out earlier, that is hardly a body with a great record of efficiency. People do fall through the net.
	Anyone setting up a charity to work with children or vulnerable adults is required to go through a Criminal Records Bureau check. However, as the  Daily Mirror highlighted earlier this year, a charity that was set up in the name of a convicted paedophile fell through the net and did not get picked up by the Charity Commission. What kind of CRB check will be required for trust bodies? Will it be the standard check or an enhanced one? Of course, such issues were picked up following the Soham tragedy, which showed that those on the periphery of education are subject to the standard check, rather than an enhanced one. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will say whether these trusts will be subject to the standard CRB check or an enhanced one. That is an important factor to be considered.
	Of course, in many other fields where we expect there to be a test of character, such a test is written into the relevant legislation. For example, a considerable test of character is included in the legislation governing those who ask for a personal licence to sell alcohol. However, there is no such character test in the Bill before us for those who will run our schools. That is not adequate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sarah Teather: I give way first to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier).

Meg Hillier: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making some interesting points. Does she think that locally elected councillors should be CRB checked?

Sarah Teather: That depends on the extent to which they are involved with children. Perhaps we can debate that issue on another occasion—I suspect that it is slightly outside the remit of the point that I am trying to make.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sarah Teather: I will give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and then I will make some progress.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has rather made my point. Of course, local councillors may serve on governing bodies and trusts may appoint people to governing bodies. But it is the governors and trustees who are appointed to the governing bodies who—if they work with children—have to be CRB checked, not the people who make the appointments.

Sarah Teather: I suspect that the Minister will have to clarify this issue, because my understanding is that governors do have to be CRB checked, regardless of whether or not they are local councillors. I will allow the Minister, with the help of his civil servants, to answer that question.
	I turn to amendment No. 15, which goes to the heart of the relationship between central Government and local government. In my view, this issue has very little to do with education—we could be discussing it in the context of almost any Bill that the Government introduce. For me, the proper place for taking decisions about the provision of local services is at the locally elected, locally accountable tier of government level closest to the area where the service is delivered: that is, local government. I cannot understand why we are going through the process of attempting to fetter and describe the Secretary of State's veto when it should surely be a point of principle with which the Government agree.
	In the 10-year plan for what used to be the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—I have entirely lost track of what it is called now—one of the stated objectives was to encourage more devolution and delegation to the front line, giving local leaders responsibility, accountability and the opportunity to design services around the needs of local people. Is not that precisely what we are dealing with here, giving the local authority the right to decide what provision is best for local people?
	The real question is what the Government believe local government is for. Is it an arm of the central Government's public service delivery or is it a separate, discrete, autonomous and directly elected tier of government able to take its own decisions, accountable to the community, free to pursue policies that are relevant to a local area and free to disagree with the central Government? Is not the central point about democracy and devolution the fact that a locally elected tier of government should be able to make political choices that are different from those of the central Government?

Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady seems to be defending the White Paper as originally presented, which gave the local authority the power to decide in a competition. That power has been removed only because some people insisted on the local authority being able to enter the competition, so it obviously cannot be the judge as well.

Sarah Teather: I am making the point that authorities should be allowed to decide whether a community school is the best provision for the local area. I think that that is perfectly sensible and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has attempted to change the point.
	Surely it is nonsense to suggest that the Secretary of State knows all of the local circumstances better than the local authority. If the Secretary of State assumes that he does, it profoundly changes the relationship between central and local government. New clause 33 attempts to describe when the veto will be used, but it is the Secretary of State who will describe when the Secretary of State will veto a decision, so it does not represent much of a step forward. I simply think that the Secretary of State should not be meddling at all.
	Finally, new clause 26 is designed to prevent a trust from appointing a majority of the governing body. Specifically, it is intended to prevent trusts from appointing governors that would outnumber elected parent governors on the governing body. In the light of all the spin we have heard about parent power and about giving parents choice, it seems nonsensical to pursue a policy that would reduce the elected component of parents on the governing body. Simply saying that a school would have to set up a council is not enough: welcome as councils may be, they are advisory, and having an advisory role is a sop in exchange for taking away the power to vote on and take decisions. Accountability should go to the heart of our own democracy, and we elected politicians should view it as precious and try to preserve it. I would therefore like to test the House's opinion on the new clause, which is very much a point of principle for us.
	The Conservatives have tabled a range of amendments, but I am left rather confused about their position: they say that we should trust parents, but they will not accept ballots; they say that they believe in parent power, but they want to reduce the influence of elected parent governors on the governing body; and they say that they believe in localism, but they do not trust local government. There is a disjunction between one part of their rhetoric and another, which makes it difficult to understand.
	We will support new clause 16, proposed by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), precisely because we support the principle of giving parents choice and power—

Angela Smith: rose—

Sarah Teather: I am finishing my speech now.
	I am surprised that the Government will resist that new clause.

Gordon Marsden: I am pleased to speak to new clause 35, tabled by myself and my hon. Friends, and to comment on some other amendments dealing with federations.
	I shall explain from the outset the genesis of our concern about putting some clear definition of the schools commissioner's role directly in the Bill. It started when I and my Select Committee colleagues became worried about the initially narrow way of envisaging the role and the extent to which the schools commissioner would be accountable in discharging it. When the former Secretary of State came before the Select Committee, we pressed her quite hard on the narrowness of the role of acting as a cheerleader for trusts and asked her how it was possible for the schools commissioner to be both poacher and gamekeeper at the same time, if I may put it that way.
	As was made clear and as the Government have continued to make clear, the position of the schools commissioner is that of a career civil servant. In proposing the new clause today, my hon. Friends and I are concerned to get more movement in the direction of the schools commissioner being not just a civil servant, but having a far wider and more independent remit to oversee educational provision. We believe that it should include overall monitoring of admissions policies.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the guidance that has been issued about the schools commissioner goes a long way towards addressing his concerns? Will he clarify what exactly is missing from the guidance?

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The letter that was issued on 2 May to members of the Select Committee on Education and Skills did indeed give some clarification about the schools commissioner's role. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said further helpful things in connection with the schools commissioner's role in fair admissions for children with special educational needs, but we need to tease out further things from the Government: other hon. Members have already alluded to an important principle about the extent to which we rely on letters and guidance, as opposed to regulation and things stated in the Bill.
	Nothing lasts for ever. As I have said on a previous occasion, not even Labour Governments last for ever, and it is therefore important that we should tease out to the maximum extent whether the schools commissioner will have the role of promoting co-operation and fair access, not of being merely a cheerleader for the trusts. I say that advisedly, because concern has been expressed not just by me, my colleagues on the Select Committee and those hon. Members who support the new clause, but by other organisations in commenting on the Bill.
	The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said in its initial response that the role of the schools commissioner, as originally defined, was far too narrow and could be used simply to promote trust schools, and it still has that concern. It is also important that the schools commissioner has a strategic role in overseeing admissions policies across the whole local authority area—again, something that the letter of 2 May does not make absolutely specific. So my hon. Friends and I will be looking for further guidance and clarification from Ministers—picking up the Secretary of State's welcome words earlier—about how the schools commissioner will carry out that broader remit. That is important, particularly in the context of the collaboration issue.
	Many of the concerns that Labour Members have expressed about the Bill's structure and the direction of travel have been caused by doubts about whether trust schools might act in an atomised fashion—in fact, in the sort of fashion that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) so enthusiastically endorsed only a few moments ago. Welcome clarifications of the Bill's direction of travel have been provided by the Secretary of State and, indeed, by the letter that his predecessor sent to the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, it would be helpful to Labour Members, especially those who have continuing concerns about the collaboration issue, if Ministers were able to give more chapter and verse about how the schools commissioner will operate in that respect, and how he or she will be answerable to Parliament and to the Select Committee. However, I accept that we have already seen significant movement on that.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to federation and said that the amendments on that subject were either too drastic or over-prescriptive. Again, the issue is direction of travel. Many Labour Members and organisations involved have been concerned about what force lies behind attempts to get trust schools to collaborate, not just with other trust schools, but with other schools in their local authority. That is why I welcomed the comments by my right hon. Friend earlier. However, we have to consider delivery. The Association of School and College Leaders said in its response to the Bill that it was concerned that trust schools would reinforce a hierarchy of schools, instead of the focus being on making every school a good school.
	The Government need to provide stronger incentives to encourage collaboration and partnership work. After all, we have models for that in previous education legislation and in the excellence in cities programme. The whole specialist schools programme is predicated on the principle of sharing and spreading good practice across local authorities. The Institute of Education regrets the fact that the Government have not made federation the chosen model for trust schools, which they could have done on the face of the Bill, given the rhetoric about encouraging federation and collaboration. If Ministers will not accept prescriptive amendments on federation, my hon. Friends and I hope for stronger assurances that further attention will be paid to how the collaborative process will work. The issue goes beyond the narrow confines of the Bill and is a question of—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—trust in trusts. We need to trust trusts not to operate as rogue elephants but as central providers across a local authority area and to do so in conjunction with the new and expanded role for local authorities.
	I welcome some of the reassurances that have been given, but I want to see further progress. I also want further detail, because—as always—the devil is in the detail, on how the assurances about co-operation and collaboration will operate in practice.

Edward Leigh: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 64, which I tabled, and other amendments. I hope to be brief because I sat through 55 hours of the Bill in Committee and listened to debates on numerous amendments—some 500 were tabled, but only a handful were accepted. I do not need to detain the House at any great length, partly because I am confident that new clause 64 will not be accepted either. However, I throw bouquets to Ministers in the hope that one of them may be picked up.
	The Secretary of State spent more than an hour trying to reassure Labour Members about the Bill. It is in everybody's interests, certainly of Front Benchers on both sides of the House, to claim more for the Bill than it contains. It is in the interests of the Prime Minister, because he wants to show that he can still bring in something radical, that he is not a lame duck and that he believes in the state being the enabler, not the provider. It is in the interests of those who oppose him on the left of the Labour party. I accept that they have strong principles on this issue, but they also want to burnish their belief that the Prime Minister is some kind of closet Tory—I do not think that he is. It is also in the interests of my Front Bench colleagues to claim more for the Bill than it contains because they want to set out their stall as a constructive Opposition—an understandable and correct point of view.
	The truth is, as everybody knows, that the Bill will not make much difference to the educational establishment in this country. Indeed, the Secretary of State assured us that these radical new schools—which according to some opponents of the Bill will allow middle class parents to opt out of the system—will remain in the local authority family. Numerous clauses in the Bill will enhance the powers of local authorities, the Secretary of State and local adjudicators. It is nonsense to suggest that the new schools will be anything like the grant-maintained model, and I see no reason why anybody has anything to fear from them. A fair number of schools may take up the offer to change status, but given that some 63 per cent. of schools are already community schools, the Bill will not amount to an historic change. My Front-Bench colleagues have made the point, and I agree, that this Bill is not an historic change like the education legislation in 1944 or 1988, but we still need to have this debate.
	The speech by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) was excellent and he put his finger on the issue. It is in the interest of those who support more schools having independent status not to have ballots. If we are honest about it, we do not want ballots because they favour the forces of conservatism. People do not like change. Those who were opposed to grant-maintained schools on any basis whipped up sentiment against them, but parents could be persuaded because they are conservative and do not want change. That is why the Secretary of State does not want ballots and why my party does not favour them. We recognise that we made a huge error in introducing ballots for grant-maintained status, because it led to the politicisation of the system. It was only because of opposition in the House of Lords, which certainly represents the forces of conservatism—radical Conservatives like me are always worried about it—that we introduced ballots.

Annette Brooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if parents perceived that their children would benefit from a change in the status of their school, they would vote accordingly?

Edward Leigh: Yes, I must not exaggerate my argument. Nearly 20 per cent. of schools became grant-maintained after the arguments had been set out. No doubt if we had ballots, some would be won by the governors and those who support the new model. However, the trouble with introducing the equivalent of grant-maintained schools is that people will say that they will be given special treatment and funding, as well as other benefits and advantages that are not available to other schools. If all schools were first foundation schools and then grant-maintained, it would be difficult to argue against them on the basis that they were taking more resources than they were entitled to. The one accurate argument that the Labour Opposition had against grant-maintained schools, and it was true—although denied at the time—was that they were given better funding arrangements in certain circumstances. That was unfair, but the simple way to overcome that argument would be to make all schools grant-maintained. Deep down, that is where the Government are coming from and I suspect that the Prime Minister has been frustrated by the lack of progress in state education.
	Despite our differences, all hon. Members should be very frustrated about what is going on. We know about the independent report from the National Audit Office that says that 23 per cent. of schools are underperforming. That affects 1 million kids. We all know that something radical needs to be done, so why deny the elementary truth that the Prime Minister has cottoned on to—that there must be radical change in our education structure? That is what lay behind the White Paper and the excellent notion that local authorities should be commissioners and not providers. It is a pity that we have not managed to sail along more with the Prime Minister in the direction that he wanted.

Jim Knight: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but does he accept that the NAO figure of 23 per cent. includes schools that have been described in this debate as "coasting"? Will he confirm that it would be inaccurate for the House to believe that 23 per cent. of schools were failing?

Edward Leigh: I do confirm that, and am sorry to have given the opposite impression, but is not a school that is merely coasting still failing its students? I think that it is. We want all schools to be excellent, although that may not be possible in the real world. However, it is a matter of serious interest if 1 million children are in coasting or under-performing schools. Presumably, that is what prompted the Education White Paper, and why the Prime Minister felt that we needed these radical proposals. It is a pity that he cannot use his massive parliamentary majority to get his way in this matter.
	I have tabled my amendments because the Bill places all sorts of obstacles in the way of schools. For example, a school that decides to become a new foundation school has to publish a proposal, then consult the LEA and other schools, parents and teachers in the area, and then consult any national faith group that provides the school. If the proposed foundation school does not have a religious character, it must consult the trust or foundation that provides the school. If proposals affect the provision of full-time 14 to 19 education, the Learning and Skills Council must be consulted. Local MPs must also be consulted, as must local district, parish and community councils. The school must also consult any other person considered to be appropriate by the governing body, and any other interested party. Special schools must consult the local NHS primary care trust. All proposals must be published, in a newspaper and at all the school's main entrances, and they must also be sent to the LEA and the Secretary of State. The list of requirements goes on and on.

Ian Stewart: What is the hon. Gentleman's problem with democracy?

Edward Leigh: I have no problem with democracy, but the requirements amount to a fig leaf for the Government. They want to reassure their supporters that there is no need to worry, as comparatively few schools will go down that route. Already, 63 per cent. of schools are community based. It is possible that another 100, 200, 300 or even 500 schools will choose to become one of the new foundation schools, but what difference will that make, when there are more than 20,000 schools in this country?
	That is the reality. I am not afraid of democracy, but I want the debate to be honest. So far this afternoon, the debate in this Chamber has not been honest.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend asks what difference 500 schools choosing foundation status would make, but the fact is that a very small number of schools can make a considerable difference to how even this Government try to reorganise our education system. It is clear that Lord Adonis has recognised that from day one.
	Introducing this Bill is not the seminal act by this Government. The seminal act was when they passed the Education Act 2002. Section 2 of that Act allowed innovation and deregulation, and gave the Secretary of State the power to suspend any statutory requirement in response to the wishes of a governing body or LEA. That is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has been a long intervention.

Edward Leigh: But it was an excellent intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lord Adonis is one of my heroes, and he faces an uphill struggle. However, I may have been unfair to the Government. I may have listened too much to what has been said in this Chamber, when I should have paid more attention to the subtext. Perhaps representing foundation schools as beacons and gradually giving them more independence will do the trick and cause good practice to spread. Even so, all sorts of problems remain with the model proposed.

Paul Farrelly: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important for the future of children's education that trusts and trustees should be properly vetted? Is not consultation an integral part of that? The debate has focused on secondary schools and large academies, but the Bill reaches down to the smallest village school. It is very important that no Tom, Dick or Harry—or Roman Abramovich—is able to take over a school without being properly vetted. That is another argument in favour of ballots, as local parents know what is going on in their area.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman identifies a fundamental difference of opinion between us, which leads me on to my final point. Last Friday, I attended a debate at the Harvard Business School. Professors spoke about educational problems in America and described precisely the same problems that have been identified this afternoon. In America, one option is known as the Edmonton model, by which schools are given complete independence to do as they like. The other model gives much more control to school boards. Under that model, outsiders have to be vetted carefully in exactly the way set out by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).
	In its wisdom, the Harvard Business School has determined that structure makes much less difference than the quality of a given head teacher. That may be the only element of my speech to find general agreement around the House. So why are we so obsessed with structure, when we know that it makes very little difference?
	If we agree that the quality of the head teacher is crucial to a school's success, why do we lack the confidence to give head teachers the power to run their schools as they want? They are the professionals: why do we in this Chamber think that we must always second-guess them? Why can we never trust the people who have been trained, at such expense, to run our schools?

Helen Jones: A school's head teacher is crucial to its success, but he or she will not get every decision right. No human being does, so is that not why we need a series of checks and balances in the system? That includes giving parents a right to have a say, as it is their children's future at stake. If there is to be a fundamental change in a school's character, parents should be consulted. That is what I would want if my son's school were involved, and I am sure that the same is true for other parents.

Edward Leigh: Of course that is right, and it is why I want head teachers to be subject to governing bodies. I should be happy for those bodies to be elected by the parents of children attending the school, but I should also like the head teacher who reports to that governing body to have maximum freedom. I do not see why that statement should be regarded as too radical, or simply wrong.
	The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) is right: head teachers are human and they will make mistakes, but we should let them. However, if a school does not deliver what parents want, those parents have some power. If a school's success depends on students wanting to attend it—and I hope that we still believe in allowing money to follow the pupil—people will vote with their feet and the school will have to reform its ways. That is what real consumer choice is all about. It does not lie in this Chamber but in the millions of decisions that ordinary citizens make.

Angela Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that head teachers already have considerable freedom in how they run their schools? That was started by the previous Conservative Government, but it has been continued by this Labour Government. Does he agree that the Bill offers head teachers new freedoms to bring in external partners to help them and the governors improve their schools still further?

Edward Leigh: That is the hon. Lady's third or fourth intervention, and all have been excellent and very loyal to the Bill. I wish her well, but she asks a question that is not my business. I am in favour of anything that gives head teachers more independence or more power to bring in external partners, and I approve of anything that gives them power to federate. I have no problem with any of that but, to get the Bill through the House, the Government have given more power to the Secretary of State rather than less. That is something that we should be worried about.

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman and I both had the honour of attending the Harvard Business School lecture. He might also have pointed out that leadership at district level was identified as the most important factor. The role of the local education authority is critical in the Bill.

Edward Leigh: It all goes to show that one's views of a lecture are always subjective; one's innate prejudices affect one's approach. I thought that the lecturers presented two arguments: the Edmonton argument, to which I referred, of complete independence for schools, and the argument that local school boards should have a lot of control in achieving collaboration. At the end of the day, however, there was no overwhelming evidence that changing structures changed very much. I think that that is what the lecturers said, but if I am wrong I apologise to the hon. Lady and to them, although I am sure that they will not mind if I misquote them—they are very unlikely to read these words in any case.
	In Committee and on Report, I have tried to set out my alternative structure for education. I realise that the Government will not pick up on it, but as my hon. Friends work out their education policy over the next 18 months, I hope that they might move towards a policy of all schools becoming independent charitable trusts, to fulfil the Prime Minister's vision that all state schools should be genuinely independent.
	We need not get bogged down by whether we are in favour of or against grammar schools; I am not interested in that. All I am interested in is that schools be allowed to hire and fire, select and deselect and run their budgets as they please. That does not mean that there will be a rush of new super-selective schools. Many people, not just the middle classes but people stuck in working-class ghettoes, favour diversity. To refer again to the US, where voucher schemes are being introduced in many states, it is often black parents in poor neighbourhoods who favour education credits and vouchers as a means of escaping from the ghetto.
	I realise that I have not yet persuaded my Front-Bench colleagues to adopt education credits but I live in hope that that day will come, because it is an obvious and inescapable way of breaking down the social apartheid in education. Why does this country alone among European countries have such a large private education sector? It does not exist in France, Germany, Italy or Spain, so does not that lead Labour Members to question the economic rationale? Private education is not illegal in France, Spain or Germany, so why do as many as 50 per cent. of parents in some of our boroughs feel that the only way to obtain a decent education for their kids is either to get a chit from the parish priest so that the child can go to a faith school or to pay for independent schools?
	Why do the conservatives sitting on the Labour Benches below the Gangway believe that so many parents want to opt out of state education or want to escape from community schools to faith schools? What is the reason? Education is failing in this country because we do not have sufficient trust and faith in the ability of head teachers to run schools as they want. All my amendments were tabled in the hope of achieving that. None of them will be accepted, but one day I believe that we shall win that crusade.

David Chaytor: I support new clause 16, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) in favour of ballots, and I want briefly to speak in support of the three amendments tabled in my name.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a powerful case in his opening statement for the Bill as it now stands. I shall support it on Third Reading because it is in much better shape than we were led to believe would be the case when the White Paper was published. Its long-term and short-term effects will actually be slightly less than its most fervent advocates hoped and its fiercest opponents feared. It will not be earth-shattering legislation but it has many important provisions, especially on school discipline, the reform of the curriculum, school travel and school meals, quite apart from the changes in governance and structure, which will be beneficial.
	I shall support new clause 16 because I tabled an amendment on similar lines in Committee; it was not put to the vote, but the arguments were valid. However, I approach the question of ballots from a slightly different point of view. I start from the Education Reform Act 1988. It is interesting that a number of Conservative speakers, including Front-Bench Members, now accept that their ballot system, introduced under that Act, was a mistake. But had that legislation not included provision for ballots, what would have been the position of the Labour Opposition at the time? Would we have accepted that it was entirely legitimate for a simple majority in a governing body to opt out of the local authority, with the huge additional resources that went with that, without further consultation with parents? Of course not.
	We thought that the ballot process in the 1988 Act was necessary. We participated in many ballots across the country and ensured that fierce local debate took place. We also ensured that when the result of the ballot had been announced it settled the issue, because the ballot conferred legitimacy.
	I take a slightly different view because I do not fully accept the argument that new clause 16 would reduce the number of schools that will opt for trust status. The advantage of a ballot is that it would encourage much better-informed debate about the implications of transfer to trust status. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who made an interesting speech, pointed out that people are naturally conservative and reluctant to change. That is a reasonable generalisation when the status quo is acceptable, but when it is not, and when parents are conscious of difficulties in respect of their children's education or the capacity of their school, they are very open to alternative ways forward. That is why the use of a ballot would provide far better-informed local debate and would not necessarily result in a reduced number of schools taking that route.
	In the short term, I do not think there will be a huge wave of new trust schools. I am not opposed to the concept. We already have foundation schools, although few people seemed to know that they existed before the White Paper was published, and nobody has ever argued that we should abolish them, so I can see no great objection to having more of them, if it is the outcome of serious local debate and there is general agreement that they are a useful way forward.
	It has been argued that the ballot is a distraction or somehow not legitimate, and that other forms of consultation are preferable. Of course, it is important that there are other forms of consultation and that the ballot is not free-standing. My reading of new clause 16 is that the ballot would be a precondition for transfer to trust status but that it would not inevitably result in such a move, precisely because there would be other forms of consultation. The local authority would have the right to be consulted and to refer the matter to the adjudicator and neighbouring schools would also have the right to be consulted.
	It is important that we maintain the basic principle of one parent, one vote, but that there is also another set of procedures for consultation. As I said in Committee, in response to Conservative amendments that would have allowed 50 parents to demand that a new school be built, I am not at all in favour of small numbers of parents, who may not be representative, sidetracking or hijacking normal democratic procedures. However, where such proper procedures are built into the system, they give greater weight to decisions.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to one of my proposals, new clause 44, which provides that before a decision on trust status is taken, there should at least be a parents' meeting. He expressed interest in that suggestion, so I hope that he might accept the new clause when he responds to the debate. However, it seems ironic and illogical that at precisely the moment at which we are relieving governing bodies of the burden of holding an annual parents' meeting—because we know that the experience of annual parents' meetings has been less than satisfactory and that the attendance is almost derisory—we are arguing that an annual parents' meeting is a better means of resolving the issues than a ballot. I see the parents' meeting as another part of a package of measures that would make up the consultation procedure. That package would include a ballot and consultation with the local authority and neighbouring schools.

Angela Smith: One of the most controversial and difficult decisions that a school governing body ever has to take is the decision to close a school. That is also a situation in which parents become conservative and resistant to change. Does my hon. Friend recommend ballots in those situations as well? Is that not the logical conclusion of his argument?

David Chaytor: In the case of school closure, it is entirely reasonable that a ballot should be part of the overall decision-making process. We are not talking about school closures at the moment, but, yes, I agree. Denying parents a vote on an issue of central importance will inevitably lead to greater division and a lower level of legitimacy for the final decision. The weakness in the argument that schools or governing bodies may choose to have a ballot, but it will not be mandatory, is that we then face the prospect of a series of different kinds of ballot being held according to different kinds of rules. If we have a democracy, everybody should play by the same rules. We cannot have school A holding a ballot with a particular definition of the electorate and according to a particular procedure, and school B, a mile down the road, doing things differently. That would be a recipe for chaos and would lead to challenges. It would be a huge job creation programme for the schools adjudicator's office. There will be hundreds of appeals to the adjudicator if we do not ensure that consensus is at the heart of the process and if we allow a comparatively small number of people on a small governing body to have the final say—perhaps by a tiny majority.

Peter Soulsby: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us already have experience of consultation without ballots in the context of the establishment of academies in our constituencies? I know from my own experience that that so-called consultation involved professional consultants, a lot of money and a professional selling job. I hope that he would agree that that sort of consultation is based on no real understanding of the issues and no real say for parents, and that there is really no alternative to proper information, proper debate and a vote.

David Chaytor: That is the heart of my argument: the ballot process ensures that the decision is made on the basis of the best possible information. It ensures that everything is on the table and that, after the decision has been taken, nobody can say that they were not consulted or that the arguments were not presented properly.
	New clause 38 deals with the question of the Secretary of State's veto and simply requires that the Secretary of State has to have regard to standards as the key criterion before giving his or her approval. New clause 33 deals with many of the concerns that Labour Members, in particular, had about the Secretary of State's role and veto. The model put forward of local authorities in different categories being able to make their own bids for new community schools is absolutely right. As I think was said earlier, we hope that, as time goes by, more local authorities will move out of the lowest categories, so logically there should be less need for the Secretary of State to exercise the veto. I am therefore comparatively happy that the Secretary of State has responded to those concerns.
	I want to say a word or two about new clause 48, which relates to the register. Having listened to what was said earlier, I am not sure that there is very much difference between a register that is compiled in advance and a website compiled retrospectively. The two sides are moving very close together. However, just as the ballot ultimately serves to legitimise the policy and to protect those who argue the case for it, the register serves to legitimise the policy by giving a guarantee—as far as the Government can give that guarantee—that a trust on the register is a suitable trust. The register also protects the Government.
	I ask the Minister to think of the tabloid hysteria in the week before this year's municipal elections. What would happen if, in the week before next year's municipal elections or the general election in three or perhaps four years' time, we had similar tabloid hysteria because one individual in one trust that had not been properly vetted in advance by the Department, but had nevertheless formed a relationship with a school, had been involved in one of the activities that the guidance proscribes? I am talking about tobacco, gambling and various other things. If we found ourselves in that situation, not only would the trust policy be undermined, because it would be seen to have led to inappropriate people becoming involved in schools, but the Government would be undermined. The argument for the register is that it protects the Government as well as the policy.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My intervention relates to ballots. Will my hon. Friend explain why, in the context of the decision, he is giving so much weight to local parents who currently have children at the school? They may have a child at that school for only three, four or five months. Why do their views outweigh the desires of the wider community, including child care partnerships, the local authority and parish councils?

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, there are limitations with any electorate. The reason for being part of that electorate can be greater or lesser. However, although some parents at the school may not have a long-term interest in it—having said that, parents of children in year 11 may have children about to join the school in year 7—the same argument could equally apply to the governing body. There will be people on the governing body who may no longer be governors in three or six months' time. We have to accept that, whoever is given the job of taking the decision, there will be some difficulties and anomalies of the kind that she has identified.

Margaret Moran: Will my hon. Friend explain how the parents of children in schools in my constituency that feed into South Luton high school, which has been a failing school for many years, can have the influence that they want to improve that school, either as a trust school or as an academy? Surely those parents have a right to influence the decision. Their children will be going to that school and those children's future education is at stake.

David Chaytor: I entirely agree, but it then becomes a matter for the governing bodies of the feeder primary schools to decide whether they wish to hold a ballot and provide that level of consultation with parents. My argument is that no one group should have a veto or supreme power. The issue is about getting the right checks and balances between the rights and responsibilities of parents, school governors and the local authority, and of parents and governors in neighbouring schools. I return to my point that, as I read new clause 16, the ballot is a precondition for the move to trust status, but does not automatically lead to trust status, because that decision will be dependent on the wider forms of consultation, as well.

Paul Farrelly: I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), which will be put to a vote later. I have carefully read the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and they are excellent. They are well drafted and make powerful points. They have attracted a great many signatures from Labour Members. Which out of new clause 38, new clause 44, new clause 48 and the consequential amendment No. 96 does he intend to push to a vote later tonight?

David Chaytor: None of them, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
	Let me make my final point on new clause 16. When a school has been in difficulties, we must assume that its governing body has not been entirely effective—I do not want to make any stronger criticism than that. We know that many governing bodies throughout the land, of both primary and secondary schools, are not entirely effective. Is it not completely illogical that the decision about a transfer to trust status should be put in the hands of the people who were responsible for the decline of the school in the first place? We must return to the point that no one group of people should either have a veto, or be solely responsible for taking the decision. Such a decision could have an impact on many people and, perhaps, throughout a whole local authority because other schools would have to be involved. We must consider current parents and future parents with children coming through from primary schools. All voices must be heard, but a requirement to hold a ballot of parents in the school that is most directly and immediately involved should be paramount.

Kenneth Clarke: It was a pleasant and unusual experience to speak on Second Reading, because I was able to support an education White Paper that had been put forward by a Labour Government and vote in favour of a Bill that largely, although not entirely, lived up to the expectations of that White Paper. It was certainly most unusual to find myself voting in a parliamentary majority of well over 300 for an education Bill because, regrettably, education has probably been one of the most divisive political topics that the House has contemplated over many years. I could not help reflecting on how much the Ministers who embarked on the process of public service reform in various areas during the late 1980s and early 1990s would have wished for such an emerging consensus on the principles that we were progressing. We would no doubt have got a lot further by now if we had not had many years of dispute and—when the Labour party first got back into office—retreat, before getting back more or less to where we started.
	Despite the consensus, when the Bill went into Committee I was worried about how much the Government would retreat from what they had put forward. Of course, I welcome parliamentary discussion of a Bill's details. I always welcome it when Governments of any complexion make concessions in response to arguments that have persuaded them, but the process for this Bill was must unusual. Governments are normally most inclined to make changes to legislation when their usual parliamentary majority is squeezed, and they thus feel under pressure and in need of restoring support. However, the proposals that the Prime Minister wished to get through the House of Commons were supported by an overwhelming majority, but the Government were obliged to enter into horse-trading with, and to make concessions to, a significant minority of their Back Benchers, most of whom opposed the principles of reform as a whole.
	After considering the amendments, I share the judgment of my right hon. and hon. Friends who speak from the Front Bench that the Government have not retreated too far and the essential virtues of the Bill remain, so I will continue to support it. However, new clause 33 shrieks of compromise and is a long way away from the Prime Minister's stated preference, which I take to be that set out in the White Paper—that local authorities should steadily move towards encompassing more of a commissioning role and stop thinking of themselves solely as the providers of services. But there we are—the proposal looks workable and no doubt the guidance and regulations could be amended by a future Government if it turns out to give rise to practical problems, so I am quite content.
	As I have agreed with everything that has been said by Conservative Members, I will confine myself to making the point that induced me to participate in the debate. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to continue until the end of the Bill's legislative process to resist strongly the arguments in favour of ballots that are supposed to determine the extent of progress. I like to look forward on these subjects, so I will try not to burden the House too much with my past experience—but I think that I was one of the Ministers who were right in the middle of what I regard as the experiment of balloting on such changes that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The experience was unhappy and divisive and did this country's education system no service, so I really do not think that we should go back to it.

Ian Stewart: Why is it that Members who argue against balloting do not have the eyes to see, or the ears to hear, that what was divisive was the principle of the proposals in the first place?

Kenneth Clarke: It turned out that balloting was used as an excuse to try to wreck the principles underlying the reform, as I shall briefly explain. I will not repeat the principles on which the majority consensus in the House agrees. We are looking for a better form of localism in so far as structure is relevant to improving the quality of service, although I agree with all those who have expressed reservations about whether structural reform in itself can guarantee success. There are more important factors, but such reform is an important contributor nevertheless. We are moving back towards a situation in which we are striving to give people who deliver services at the local level more autonomy, discretion and control over what they can provide. We are trying to determine whether we can introduce a greater diversity of providers and have some competition among them, because we think that the process will thus become more consumer-oriented and, in the case of education, that parents will get used to the feeling that they are able to exercise more choice and real influence over the schools that they choose when they get into the education system.
	Kenneth Baker—now my noble Friend Lord Baker—embarked us on such a process in 1988. However, that was part of a whole package of reform. We had grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. In the health service we had NHS trusts and GP fundholding practices. We also had housing action trusts. All those things followed the same underlying principles of localising and moving towards more local discretion and a greater diversity of supply. We did not have ballots for most of those proposals—when we started out, we were not advocating local ballots for any of them. We had ballots on housing action trusts and grant-maintained schools, but my recollection is that that was not the intention of the Government in whom I served when we first put the proposals forward. I recall that we were defeated in both cases by the House of Lords, which insisted that when setting up housing action trusts, which took the management of housing out of local authority control—they achieved great improvements in many cases—or allowing schools to take up grant-maintained status, the matter should be subject to a ballot.
	I am sure that the arguments that then appealed to their lordships were very similar to the reasonable-sounding arguments that have been put forward by the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The arguments are, "We're all democrats. Why can't we have an intelligent local discussion? If the reforms are so attractive, surely you'll find that the proposals will be carried forward by the people who will benefit from them. What are you frightened of?" Their lordships were attracted by that democratic appeal—such appeals usually attract them on any argument except that concerning their own status and composition—and we were rather unsure whether we had an adequate majority to overturn them, so away we went with ballots built into the proposals.
	I have been involved in many such proposals at various stages. It was always my intention that NHS trusts should eventually become the norm in the health service, as they have. It was always my intention that grant-maintained schools should be the norm. However, we never imposed them and no one is suggesting that they should be imposed now. The whole point of introducing changes to the structure was that local people—governors and head teachers, in the case of schools—should put forward the proposals and volunteer for the change. The likelihood of success is increased enormously if that happens. The people who opted for NHS trust status, the GPs who wanted fundholding practices, and the governors and head teachers who opted for grant-maintained status were thereby committing themselves to making a success of the changes that they were introducing. They chose to do that not at the behest of the Conservative party or Whitehall, but because they believed that they could demonstrate to their communities that they could produce a better service if they did.
	That is the basis on which we proceeded. NHS trusts spread like mad, and they were the norm when the Labour party came to power, which is why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) could not abolish NHS trust status when he was Secretary of State. If we had been in power for longer, GP fundholding would have become the norm. It would not have been reversed, so the Government would not have been obliged to return to it, as they are currently doing.
	There were hundreds of grant-maintained schools, but they did not become the norm. All those ballots were bitter political and ideological battles. There were about 10 such schools when I assumed responsibility for education. By the time I had finished there were more than 100, and I could probably list all their names. We fought a battle from trench to trench across the country as those ballots took place. We should not be under any illusion. I heard the charm in the voices of left-wing members of the Labour party who asked what was wrong with a ballot—but head teachers and governing bodies required great courage to subject themselves to the ordeal, and it left some of them badly knocked about. Local authorities, including Conservative ones, defended their institutional interests by devoting large amounts of money and a great deal of officer time and effort to campaign against the proposals. They were supported by the teaching trade unions, which contributed a great deal of money. Local Labour organisations were wheeled into action to distribute leaflets, and everything became a political battle, in which we could not even agree on the facts.
	In my county—but not in my constituency—the local authority mounted an elaborate and successful case. Contrary to the general argument that grant-maintained schools were unfairly financed, it persuaded parents that such schools would lose money, so there would be less money per pupil. There was a predictable effect on parents, who were not initially hostile, and had been attracted to the proposal when it was first made by the head teacher and governors, whom they knew.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, the public are instinctively conservative; that is one reason why we make such slow progress on these subjects. The secret of referendums and local ballots is that people always vote against change. Parents are naturally cautious about change, but they are prepared to listen to head teachers and governors explaining that they will do better under the proposals. However, they may discover that they have wished on their community a ferocious political battle, and there may be welter of warnings and even threats. Staff who make a commitment to support grant-maintained status worry about what will happen if they lose the ballot and find themselves back in the employ of the local authority, which expended a great deal of effort resisting change.
	In some cases that battle was bitter and extreme, and we lost most of the ballots— [ Interruption. ] I am delighted to be told that we won most of them; we obviously began to improve as time went on, and subsequent Ministers assumed those responsibilities. Personally, however, I lost quite a lot. Whether those battles were won or lost, the process politicised and poisoned the atmosphere in schools, and it took a long time to recover. If anyone tries to seduce us with arguments about gentle local democracy giving more legitimacy to change, they are defying our experience in the early 1990s.

Andrew Turner: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who was very much involved at that time.

Andrew Turner: I apologise for the vehemence with which I tried to set the record straight a moment ago. I do not feel particularly strongly about ballots, but is it not a regrettable fact that areas where people were confident were more likely to benefit from grant-maintained status? Areas that were likely to bamboozled by the forces of conservatism, whether those were represented by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) or others, lost out.

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, with the inevitable result that we tended to do better in middle-class, articulate areas that were familiar with arguments about management. However, as we all agree in the House, the need for educational reform is often strongest in deprived areas where people are not used to being involved.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken us on a historic tour of the battles over grant-maintained schools. Perhaps he can now bring that experience to bear on the new clause.

Kenneth Clarke: I am not the only Member who, as well as discussing where we are now, enjoys reminiscing. You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that I have done enough of that—but it explains my belief that we should not go any further than the Government have gone with their highly elaborate and bureaucratic consultation. We should not allow arguments about ballots to make further progress, and the House of Lords should not be seduced by such arguments.
	I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that there is a danger that we will elevate all those things and give them symbolic significance, which they probably do not deserve. Nevertheless, this is an important step. We have experimented with city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and city academies, and some of them have made substantial advances that they would not otherwise have achieved. They also have a much wider effect on the education system as a whole, as they provide an example of what can be achieved and they help to spread best practice. I trust that that will happen in this case.
	I hope that the spirit of consensus will be restored once the Bill completes its legislative passage. In a few years' time, people will wonder what the fuss was about, compared with 1988—to which I am forbidden to return. In 10 years' time, people will marvel that the House continued to resist the idea that parents could be trusted with much more control and influence. The provision of education services by a much wider diversity of providers will come to be regarded as the norm. I hope that this particular debate will be seen as the last thrashing about by a part of the House that has done absolutely nothing to contribute to educational reform or change. It is a small minority, whose members do not realise the urgency of reform or understand its importance for our society.

Helen Jones: After years of being referred to on my home turf as the hammer of the Trots, it is a pleasure to be referred to as a left winger by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). If my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) were in the Chamber, she would be similarly amused.
	I wish to speak in support of new clause 16, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), and to touch on a couple of new clauses that stand in my name. Some of the arguments against allowing parents to conduct a ballot on a major change in their child's school are extremely flawed. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) asked why parents should hold a ballot. The answer is set out in the White Paper, in which the Government say that they want a to move to a position where
	"the system as a whole is increasingly driven by parents and by choice."
	If we want to give people a choice, we must accept the risk that they will make choices that we do not like. That is what democracy is about. Some of the suggestions that we have heard apply to any election. It was suggested, for example, that it is unfair to hold ballots, because a great deal of information is sent to people. Contentious views are expressed, and the process became politicised. So be it—we must trust parents to sift the information and make a decision. We trust them to do so in a general election, so why not trust them in a ballot on their school?
	It was suggested, too, that parents of children who would soon leave the school would not have long-term interests in its future. That was answered very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who said that that is true of all electorates. I invite my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who subscribe to that view to apply it to the electorate voting in a general election. "You may not survive for the whole of this Parliament. You might pop your clogs very soon. You won't have a vested interest, so we'll not allow you to vote." One can say that about every electorate in every election.
	New clause 16 does not preclude further ballots taking place. It does not preclude involving parents at feeder schools. It does not preclude other consultations. It states that if we are serious about parents being at the heart of the system and if we are serious about choice, we must allow them to make that choice. Some in the Chamber have come close to saying this afternoon—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe almost said it in these terms—that they did not like ballots because they did not produce the results that they wanted. That is not a tenable position in a democracy, and it is a very dangerous road for politicians of any stripe to go down.
	If the Government are convinced that trusts will be popular with parents and that that is the right way to go, let us have the argument and let parents have a say. There is nothing to fear from a real debate. If we do not accept the new clauses and amendments, let us consider the choice that we are offering to the parent of a child at a school whose nature and ethos is to change radically. I think of how I as a parent would react.
	There are a number of reasons why a parent may disagree with the school's decision to become a trust. The parent may believe strongly in community schools, or may object to the people who will be coming in to run the trust, perhaps because the parent objects to their business values or does not like their religious ethos. There could be any number of reasons. That leaves the parent with the choice of leaving their child in a school with whose ethos they fundamentally disagree, or disrupting the child's education by moving them. We give them that choice without letting them have any real say in a ballot on the school's future. That is not a tenable position.
	We must tell parents that we trust them to read the information, consider the contending arguments and have their say in a ballot. If we do not, we are implicitly saying that we do not think parents are bright enough to determine the outcome or to decide among all the contending groups. That is nonsensical.

Ann Winterton: In spite of her opposition to the grant-maintained school example, does the hon. Lady agree that ballots in the schools that became grant-maintained strengthened those schools because they had a head teacher who gave a lead— [Interruption.] More money, possibly, but that was not the only reason. Does she agree that those schools had a head teacher who was go-ahead, and a supportive and excellent governing body, who knew that they were supported by the body of parents?

Helen Jones: In any school the support of parents is needed. The school will not work properly if it cannot carry the parents with it. I take strong exception to what was said earlier. The implication was that because parents in working class communities voted against grant-maintained schools, they were not au fait with the arguments. In my experience, they were. They simply had a particular view of how they wanted the schools in their community to be organised.

Tom Levitt: I hope that those listening to the debate are not unintentionally misled by something that my hon. Friend just said. She spoke about parents perhaps being concerned about the religious ethos or the business values of a trust, but the trust cannot be a religious organisation and must be a charity, so that would not arise. Similarly, she spoke about the ballot making a decision. That is not what new clause 16 says, and I do not think it is what my hon. Friend intended.

Helen Jones: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position on trusts. He is right that the trust will be a charity, but it quite possible for it to be a charity and to have behind it a business organisation or a religious organisation. One of my great concerns about the setting up of trusts has been all along—I said it on Second Reading—that there are fundamentalist organisations waiting in the wings to set up charitable arms in order to run trust schools. As a parent I have a right to say whether I think that is appropriate for my child, and every other parent has a right to have their say on that as well.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend mentioned general elections and local authority elections, where the electorate is clearly defined by the electoral register. My concern about ballots is that they involve the parents of children who currently attend the school. The school belongs to the community, not just the present parents. I worry about how it would be possible to ballot opinion in the community effectively.

Helen Jones: The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. Clearly, there is a register of parents whose children attend a particular school. That does not preclude consultation with other members of the community. If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) is concerned about making sure that the community is involved in trust schools, I hope she will support the amendments to increase the percentage that a local authority can nominate to trust schools. One cannot argue both ways, though one can try.
	I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 7 in my name. I have attempted to clarify what we mean by diversity. Clause 2 presents a problem. Local authorities have a duty to promote diversity. Those on the Front Bench say that it is not their intention to force trusts on anybody. I accept their assurance on that, but if we define diversity only in terms of structures, we have a problem when it comes to making decisions on new schools. My amendment, which I think accords with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, enables a local authority to discharge its duty to promote diversity in secondary schools by encouraging a range of specialist provision in those schools. I think that is the right way to go.
	We have heard repeatedly in the debate that what makes a good school is the head and the teachers in that school, rather than the structure, and that what makes for diversity and gives real choices to our young people are the different kinds of specialism on offer and the different kinds of ethos of a school, not simply the structure under which it is set up. If it is true, as my right hon. Friend said earlier from the Front Bench—if I understood him correctly—that the Government want diversity to be seen in those terms, why will they not write that into the Bill? My amendment seems uncontentious and in accord with what the Secretary of State said. He touched on the regulations that would be introduced, but that requires a leap of faith, because we have not seen them.
	I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will hear from him about how the Government intend to draft the regulations on diversity. It is vital that when we talk about a range of schools, we are talking about a range of options on offer to our young people—specialisms in languages, arts and so on. We must allow them a real choice. There can be many different structures but still no real choice. Choice and diversity are not the same thing, though they are often confused.

Paul Farrelly: On choice, I hope that my hon. Friend will also speak to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which are in her name. It seems odd that a school that has all that choice can choose to have a majority of trustees from a foundation, but it cannot choose to have more than 20 per cent. LEA-appointed governors. My hon. Friend's amendment does not state that that figure must be 50 per cent. It states that the number should not exceed 50 per cent., so it gives more choice than a restriction to 20 per cent.

Helen Jones: I will come on to that matter in a moment.
	I may wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment on diversity—I understand that a vote would happen tomorrow—depending on the response from Ministers, whom I hope will reassure me that the Government will take diversity into account.
	Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 relate to the maximum percentage of members on a foundation nominated by a local authority. We heard earlier that the Government will resist those amendments because they believe that trusts should be treated in the same way as companies that include a local authority. I contend that that is exactly the wrong model to apply to a school, because if a school is to succeed, it needs to be involved in a partnership. If we want a partnership, we should give people the opportunity to form real partnerships, where those from trusts, the local authority and others have the chance to be equally represented, which may well be a model that many schools want to adopt.
	If that is not possible, it will raise a number of problems. The Government have said that they want trusts to be part of the local family of schools, but much of what is now done in schools and much of what we want to do in the future depends on co-operation between different bodies. The 14-to-19 agenda, "Every Child Matters", the youth service White Paper and the extended schools programme depend not only on schools themselves, but on interaction between schools and other services run by local authorities.
	It may well be that some schools think it appropriate to have a more equal partnership on their governing bodies. I think that we should allow them to make that choice, if they so wish. That is particularly true in the case of local authorities, which may want to federate all their schools into one foundation. Are we saying that if that were to happen, local authority nominees can hold only 20 per cent. of the positions? In my view, that would be a disincentive to taking such an approach, rather than an incentive.
	The Select Committee also pointed out that when local authorities have to hand over their schools to another body to run, it is difficult for them to take long-term decisions on investment, because they have received no assurance that they will have a stake in those schools in the future. I think that it would be much better for local authorities to have that stake, which would encourage them to undertake long-term financial planning.
	I support the amendments on ballots and hope that I will hear more from Ministers about my other amendments. Some of the comments that we have heard today are worrying in a democracy, particularly when we are discussing ballots. If one is a democratic politician, one needs to trust the electorate and to accept that people will sometimes make decisions that one does not like and with which one disagrees. That is democracy, and when the amendment on ballots is moved tonight, I hope that my hon. Friends will bear those points in mind.

Robert Wilson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), or perhaps she should be styled, "Hammer of the Trots." I could have done with her help earlier in the week, because I have had a nasty stomach bug myself, which was probably brought on by 55 hours in Standing Committee. Seriously, it is always a pleasure to follow such a passionate debater, and she always makes a great contribution to education debates.
	I want to discuss new clauses 61 and 62 and amendment No. 111, which stand in my name. On new clause 61, like Conservative Front Benchers, I am keen to hold the Government to their original White Paper promises. I hope that Labour Members remember the White Paper—I see that quite a few of them would like to forget it—which states that the schools commissioner will
	"act as a national champion for the development of trust schools and to work with potential trusts."
	The Government clearly saw the schools commissioner's role as promoting trust schools and acting as their champion. In my view, that is a worthy endeavour and one that I fully support, particularly if one considers the educational forces ranged against the success and spread of trust schools. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has outlined some of the forces that are ranged against the success and spread of trust schools.
	Evidence taken by the Education and Skills Committee on the White Paper demonstrated to me the considerable clout of the educational establishment. Its knee-jerk response is to oppose anything that might weaken its iron grip on what happens in schools or that increases its accountability to parents and children. I was thoroughly disheartened by some of the witnesses, who utterly failed to have an open mind about the progress and change that the White Paper and Bill could bring. Many of them simply see trust schools and the commissioner's role as a threat to the status quo, which would be a reasonable or even worthy position, if the status quo had not failed so many of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has pointed out that 23 per cent. of schools are failing, which involves 1 million children, and that a similar percentage of schools are coasting.
	The local education authorities and unions that we saw in the Education and Skills Committee were a particular disappointment, and it is likely that both will do all in their power to block progress to reforming and widening choice and diversity. We must not allow them to prevail, which is why I included a section in the Select Committee minority report on the White Paper calling on the Government to allow the schools commissioner to promote trust schools. As hon. Members will see from new clause 62, I believe that we must go further against the powerful educational forces ranged against the success of trust schools.
	I have not changed my view on the schools commissioner, and I am delighted that Conservative Front Benchers are thinking along similar lines. However, we may need to do more in government than appoint a single champion if trust schools are to succeed. I am therefore delighted that Conservative Front Benchers have tabled new clauses 21, 56, 57 and 58, which support the original thrust of the White Paper and should have been introduced by the Government. They would support and encourage a state-run independent school system. That was Lord Adonis's original vision, which the Prime Minister clearly endorsed in the foreword to the White Paper:
	"Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools".
	That vision should not have been watered down, as the original approach in the White Paper would quickly have destroyed the appalling comprehensive system with which this country has been saddled for far too long. The watering down will mean that it will take longer to change that system, but I hope that the result will be the same. I also hope that Conservative Front Benchers push some of the new clauses to a vote tonight.
	As I have said, we might require more than a champion to ensure that trust schools take root and flourish, as the odds are stacked against them. New clause 62 attempts to redress the balance with the LEAs and unions, which will do all that they can to stop trust schools succeeding and multiplying. The opposition from those groups could be formal or informal, like the opposition to grant-maintained schools. For example, we all know how some governing bodies are heavily influenced by LEA appointees—councillors and others who have similar objectives and motives.
	If there are schools that are coasting or that are providing unsatisfactory education to pupils, why should not the Secretary of State order governing bodies to acquire foundation status? That process would not have to be undertaken in one school at a time. After bedding in, if the trusts are working, the Secretary of State may want to cut a swathe through underperforming schools. Trust schools would then largely replace bog standard comprehensive schools, and schools independent of the LEA would largely replace community schools. I want to see trust schools perform as it is hoped they will. There is every prospect that they will perform well, and we should therefore encourage and support them on their way.

Anne Snelgrove: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the schools in the Reading authority—Kendrick, St. John's, Caversham, All Saints and Churchend— that received outstanding Ofsted reports in the 2005-06 school year are bog standard? I do not think so. His LEA has worked very hard to improve all those schools in order to reach that level.

Robert Wilson: I think that the hon. Lady should do her homework, as reciting grammar schools in support of her case is probably not the most intelligent thing for a Labour Member to do. I will certainly encourage and support schools in my constituency in setting up trust schools and improving choice and diversity among schools open to all pupils. Clause 56 will stop poor performing and backward-looking LEAs such as Reading from using surplus places as an excuse to prevent good schools from expanding or new schools coming into an area.
	Finally, I turn to my amendment No. 111. New clause 33 sets out the conditions that an LEA must meet if the Secretary of State is not to veto its proposals for a new community school. Councils have the right to enter competitions to open a new community school, but they have to earn that right. Even those modest proposals are being opposed by the Local Government Association, along with Labour rebels and unions. I would rather that the Government had stuck to their original White Paper commitment that LEAs will be
	"commissioners rather than providers of education."
	That splitting of responsibility, which gives LEAs a role to champion parents and promote choice, was right when the White Paper was launched, and it is right now. I know that Labour attack dogs have needed to be thrown a bone, but weakening the commissioner-provider split in responsibility was not the right one to throw. The Secretary of State should accept new clause 57, which would restore the Bill to the position of the White Paper, but he has already said that he will reject it. The only saving grace is that the Secretary of State will have a veto, which at least tries to retain the integrity of Lord Adonis' original thinking—after all, that is the essence of the Bill. I certainly cannot foresee any circumstances in which a new community school will be agreed by a Conservative Secretary of State—nor, I hope, a Labour one.
	If the Government were to accept my amendment, which would reinforce their new clause 33, that would go some way towards ensuring that there is little likelihood of a new community school being set up. That would allow LEAs to focus on their tasks of promoting choice and diversity, mapping out what is needed in their area, ensuring that sufficient places are available, focusing efforts on school improvement partners, and running the competitions for new and replacement schools. Schools could then manage and run themselves while LEAs got on with less influential administration matters, which would mean that they were unable to damage our children's educational prospects as they have previously.
	I believe that that is what the Government ultimately want to achieve, but cannot say so as it will upset too many of their core supporters, not least a sizeable number of Labour MPs. However, the Government do want an end to a bog standard comprehensive education system, just as much as Conservative Members do. That is what they want, and that is what they will ultimately get.

David Taylor: rose—

Robert Wilson: I am just finishing.
	However, the Government may wish to dress it up for the rebels and the educational establishment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not intend to give way.

Robert Wilson: I wish the Bill every success.

Jon Trickett: I want to remind the House of precisely what happens when a community school becomes a trust and why it is so important that we agree to the new clauses on ballots, particularly new clause 23, which stands in my name.
	When a governing body decides that a community school should become a trust, it is effectively a one-way street with no way back; it remains an irreversible decision in perpetuity. That is spelled out in clause 17. When a governing body decides that a community school should become a trust school—or a foundation school, as it is described in the Bill—the school that is established is removed from the local authority family in terms of admissions. As a result, a marketplace will begin to exist. That is the fundamental philosophical underpinning of the Bill. Parents and children will be turned into consumers as opposed to citizens in an active democracy.
	The foundation school will determine its own ethos and, to some extent, curriculum. That again means moving away from the local authority family. Competition will develop between schools for those parents who are more mobile than others. A marketplace will come into existence and some schools will be seen to be successful while others fail. A discourse will come about whereby we begin to talk about mergers and acquisitions, profitable schools, failing schools and bankrupt schools. The language and practices of the stock exchange and the marketplace will enter into our state education provision. That is Labour Members' fundamental objection to this operation. It will be a socially, ethnically and religiously divisive process whereby some schools and some generations of children, particularly from working class communities, will be left in schools that are destined to perish. I should have thought that that was anathema to any Labour education principle.
	The assets—property, buildings, land and playing fields—that lay within the remit of the local authority will be removed from it and go into the foundation. It may interest Members who have not studied the Bill to know that local authority duties are covered in six lines which simply say that the local authority will promote diversity and parental choice, while 27 pages are to do with assets, property and buildings. That tells one about the priorities that lie behind the Bill. Frankly, it is about asset disposal and a form of privatisation. That is a further reason why I believe that why we should support amendments that weaken it and reject it on Third Reading.
	As I said, the process of moving from a community school or comprehensive to a foundation school is a one-way street with no way back. Indeed, the Bill expressly forbids the possibility that a trust, once established, can ever revert to being a community school. The Secretary of State accepted that in his impressive maiden speech in that role. Let us reflect on that irreversible process and how it is produced. How will a community school become a trust, or foundation, school? In the final analysis, it will be done by a simple majority vote of those governors present. I could have asked the Secretary of State what he thinks is the quorum for a governing body of a comprehensive, but I did not want to set him that test in case he did not know the answer. In fact, a third of the governing body comprises a quorum. It is therefore possible—almost probable—that in a governing body of, say, 24 people, with a quorum of eight, five governors could dispose of a comprehensive school that has served the community for 10, 20 or 30 years.
	I accept that the Bill provides for obligations to consult but, ultimately, the decision is for the governing body, by simple majority. It is wholly inappropriate to allow five members out of a governing body of 24 to make an irreversible decision to put land and property outwith local authority use and take on an admissions policy in perpetuity to determine the ethos and character of the school. The least that we can ask from the Secretary of State is for a parental ballot so that it can be determined whether the 2,000 or probably more parents with children at the school want that irreversible process to begin. With all deference to the Secretary of State, five members of my hypothetical governing body could not outweigh the votes of thousands of parents.
	What arguments have been used this afternoon against holding such a ballot? The Opposition's arguments have been a disgrace. I do not know if all my hon. Friends were present to hear it said that, if a ballot were held, groups of left-wing people might come together and argue the case. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is no longer in his place, developed another argument, which was that most parents would vote for the status quo, not many ballots would be won and we should not therefore hold them. There was an anarchist slogan, "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." That argument has been reversed this afternoon. It was argued that, because parents would vote for a community school in a proper, organic relationship with its community rather than an ideological experiment in education, ballots should not be held. That argument is in  Hansard for all to see.

Nick Gibb: Of course, 1,100 ballots were won for the grant-maintained system. We oppose ballots for foundation schools because they will drive away many potential funders of trusts who do not want to engage in a highly politicised local campaign. They simply want to benefit schools and raise the standard of education.

Jon Trickett: The hon. Gentleman had another argument. He claimed that a ballot was divisive and would politicise the process. I shall deal with that shortly. However, if the substance of his argument is that we should be afraid of giving parents a choice in case the vested private interest, charitable interest or religious sect that may take over their school will be horrified at the prospect, that is fallacious. If those interests are so afraid of parents expressing a view about their appropriateness to govern the school, why on earth should we, as legislators, have any faith in their capacity to manage a school?

Nick Gibb: I have every confidence that the ballots would be won. That is why 1,100 ballots were won in the process towards grant-maintained status. We are worried that the people who fund the charitable trusts do not want to engage in a campaign. It is not that they fear the result, but that they do not want to go through the process of having to engage in a highly politicised campaign that will drive away many charitable trusts.

Jon Trickett: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, we should either keep those organisations in the dark, in some obscure room, so that a ballot can take place, or there cannot be a ballot because they have to be brought into the full light of day. If those private interests, sometimes backed by profit-making organisations, are so afraid of the light of day and holding a debate about their character and what they will bring to the school, why should we have any confidence in their capacity to govern the school?

Ian Stewart: My hon. Friend should not to listen to the siren voices on the other side of the Chamber who claim a great victory for 1,100 ballots for grant-maintained schools. There were many thousands of schools and the only reason why 1,100 voted for grant-maintained status was the previous Conservative Government's use of a money bribe.

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend makes the point and I do not need to add to it.
	Other arguments have been presented against democracy and the ballots. It has been claimed that democracy is divisive, expensive and, worst of all, bureaucratic. I am ashamed to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fell—I am sure by accident—into using some of those arguments. I am sure that he has a stronger case than the one that we heard. However, all those arguments were used against working men having the vote in the 19th century and against women having it in the 20th century. None of them stacks up in the 21st century, which must be about democracy, citizenship and devolution of power.

Helen Jones: One of the arguments against giving women the vote was that they were incapable of understanding the issues. That is exactly the argument that has been used about parents today.

Jon Trickett: Indeed. The same arguments were used to refute arguments in this place for the abolition of slavery.

Paul Farrelly: I am not sitting with my hon. Friend because I do not want to be called left-wing, which I have been labelled for the first time tonight. Labour Members have dealt with the objections about parents and the ballot. If the new clauses are viewed as establishing the principle of the ballot, it is clearly open to the Government to table amendments in the other place. However, worries have been expressed about the composition of governing bodies, and especially about whether parents are elected or co-opted governors. The Secretary of State has introduced a safeguard of 33 per cent., but when local authorities and properly independent governors are limited to 20 per cent, the safeguard may not be enough, especially in a case in which a trust in a failing school tries to cling on and manipulate matters so as not to admit failure. A ballot is an important safeguard of making the right choice in the first place.

Jon Trickett: Of course. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The three new clauses on ballots allow the Secretary of State to draw up regulations. If he was minded to accept the overwhelming arguments in favour of democracy, it is in his power to say so in his reply or reflect upon it and have amendments tabled in another place.
	I feel that a spirit haunts the Chamber—that of the late, great right honourable Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I can imagine the expression on his face when he realised that there was another case of Members of both Front Benches agreeing. His face was a picture whenever that happened. He would say that
	"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
	when Members of both Front Benches worked together. When their views coalesce around the idea of refusing democratic principles, one has to worry.

Meg Hillier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jon Trickett: I shall not give way to a Member who has just come in.
	All the arguments for citizens rather than consumers and for strategic planning rather than marketised distribution of services are arguments for a modern, social democratic state.
	I urge all my hon. Friends to use their informed judgment on this matter. Many of them have sat here for hours making loyal interventions, but I would ask them to think about the arguments that have been made. The case against ballots has not been made. For once, for God's sake, vote with your conscience.

Tom Levitt: The conventions of the House quite rightly allow that, in a debate on Report, those who have tabled amendments are called to speak first in the Back-Bench debate. I am sure that that is the only reason why we are four hours into the debate before the first speaker who is not supporting any of the amendments has been called. I accept that convention, but I think that it is worth putting that on record.

Jon Trickett: I tabled new clauses 17 and 23, and that is why I was called to speak.

Tom Levitt: That was exactly my point. I was not arguing against the convention. It is quite right that the people who have tabled amendments should speak first. I was simply explaining why it had taken four hours to call someone who had not tabled an amendment. So I am not getting at my hon. Friend —not yet.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that the intervention made on him by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was pretty fatuous. The hon. Gentleman said that the trust backers would not want a ballot because they would not want to be involved in a campaign. But trusts do not have to have funds. In fact, we do not anticipate that they would have them, so that argument does not arise.
	Equally, the scenario that my hon. Friend described for half his speech about five governors making an irrevocable decision about the future of a school could not arise either. One of the things that many Labour Members have been doing—either front of house or backstage—over the past few weeks is to try to get back into the Bill greater authority and responsibility for the local education authorities. And one provision that we have got back into it is that the local authority would have to decide whether the consultation had been legitimate and genuine. I cannot imagine any local authority in the country accepting as legitimate or genuine the scenario that my hon. Friend has been describing. It would therefore be ruled out. My hon. Friend is not listening to me, but he can read what I have said in  Hansard tomorrow.
	I want to tackle the issue of ballots head on. Contrary to the impression that some hon. Members have given, the Bill will not ban ballots. It will not prevent schools or governing bodies from holding ballots if they wish to do so. Nor does it say that, if they do hold ballots, they should organise them in a particular way. I remember only one such ballot being held. There was only one ballot on a grant-maintained school in my constituency, and only one primary school in my constituency became grant maintained. The ballot had a majority of one. That was one of the last schools to become grant maintained so, fortunately, it had one of the shortest careers as a GM school. However, the ballot was binding, and it was carried by a majority of one parent, making that school become grant maintained. That could not happen under the provisions of the Bill, because the local authority will now have a veto if it does not consider the ballot to have been properly conducted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) told us in an intervention that a ballot would protect us from the organisations with the most money, the most eloquence and the most force dominating the debate. That could not possibly happen in a ballot, could it? Yes, of course it could, and it happened in GM ballots time after time.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is missing the point that the new clauses include a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations on ballots. It would therefore be possible for the Secretary of State to regulate the amount of spending and the amount of material that could be put out.

Tom Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Peter Soulsby: I think that my hon. Friend has unintentionally misrepresented the point that I was trying to make earlier. I said that, without ballots, it is possible—as I have seen in an academy in my constituency—to employ very well paid professional consultants to carry out consultations. My point was that that kind of so-called consultation is no more than a selling job, and that, when important decisions are taken about the educational structure that will govern the schools in which our children are educated, we want properly informed debate and, at the end of the process, a vote.

Tom Levitt: Apart from that last clause, I accept the point that my hon. Friend has made. Indeed, I also accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) made earlier. However, their points do not detract from my argument, because schools considering trust status could still hold ballots if they so wished.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North mentioned regulations. In a sense, that is where the problem arises. In an earlier intervention, I asked who should be balloted. There seems to be consensus that it should be the parents of the children currently in the school, because that is the easiest way of doing it. It is not necessarily the right way, but it is the easiest. So the ballot would include the parents of children who were just about to leave, yet it would exclude the parents of children just about to join the school. Why not include the parents of children at the feeder schools? Why not include the children at the school in the consultation, particularly if it were a secondary school? Why not include all the stakeholders in the education system? In my constituency, every secondary school is already a specialist school, and there are partners—in some cases private sector partners—to be considered as well. Their opinion also needs to be taken on board.
	However, at the end of the day, under the Bill, it will be the local authority that decides whether the consultation was appropriate and valid, and whether the conclusions drawn by the governors were consistent with the process and content of the consultation that has taken place.

David Taylor: I am listening with interest to the points that my hon. Friend is making. Is he about to refute the fundamental principle of the new clauses, and to describe why the requirement for a ballot—and for the governing body to observe its result—is so fatally flawed?

Tom Levitt: I have explained why a ballot should not be binding. As I understand it, new clause 16 does not require the ballot to be binding. There are many types of ballot that could be used, to ballot different stakeholder groups and so on, but whatever type of consultation is used, the local authority will have an obligation to decide that it has been demonstrably valid, inclusive and appropriate.
	Some of us have fought long and hard, behind the scenes as well as in front, to re-establish the role of local authorities in the Bill, in a way that it was not on Second Reading. I think that we have done a good job, and that Ministers have listened and been sympathetic. A requirement that ballots should be binding flies in the face of that progress because it would undermine the role of the local authority envisaged in the Bill. It would give the local authority less power to implement the obligations that the Bill places on it to improve schools, which is its prime function. If the local authority were cut out of that process, as the amendment proposes, the procedure would simply not be worth doing.
	I remind colleagues on the Labour Benches that we have received a letter today from the Labour group of the Local Government Association, which says:
	"We are therefore prepared to recommend support for Third Reading of a Bill which now goes a long way to meet our shared objectives...There is too much of value to lose if the Bill does not gain a Third Reading."
	That letter does not advocate support for any particular amendments that have been tabled. I urge Members to get behind the Bill. It is a far better Bill than it was, so let us ensure that it gets on to the statute book without any unnecessary division.

Barbara Keeley: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I want to speak briefly against the proposals to make parental ballots compulsory.
	The method of consulting stakeholders, including parents, should be decided locally, subject to the guidance of the Secretary of State or the regulations described in clause 8. I say that from my experience as the council cabinet member with responsibility for education in Trafford. The time that I served in that capacity led me to understand that the range of those who should be involved in the establishment or change of status of a school is necessarily wide. Of the local schools, the feeder schools especially have a key role, and leaving them out of the decision making would not be appropriate. As for schools in nearby local authority areas, Trafford was particularly affected by children coming in from Manchester and Salford. Sometimes the borders were such that a catchment area of a quarter or half a mile took one into Manchester or Salford. The effects of such boundaries are an important consideration. Organisations such as dioceses, learning and skills councils, FE colleges and child care organisations, as were mentioned earlier, all have a role to play, especially as schools develop their functions. They ought to be consulted and weight should be attached to their views.
	It is not right that a parental ballot should be either compulsory or the major deciding factor. That could leave the development of a school open to campaigns by small but vocal groups. Other Members have reflected on the fact that parents have an interest in a school only for the period that their child is at the school. In response to the trust model in the Bill, the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations stated:
	"Ask any parent to provide the definition of a Trust school and most probably won't be able to tell you. It's not that they aren't interested, but that they see their children's education as the product of individual schools and/or teachers. On the other hand, most would probably say that they would like schools to have more control and authority. This is because parents want their child to receive an education which is tailored to meet their individual needs."
	It continued:
	"Therefore, parents must instinctively welcome the notion of a Trust school. However, this would need to be weighed against their concern about further fundamental change within the education system and another cohort of children—their children—being the guinea pigs".
	Having spent several years as a local education authority governor in both a primary and secondary school, I always found that the parent governors with whom I worked tended to have that narrow focus. That is not appropriate. It is not a wide enough body of people to make a decision about a change of status. The focus of that governing body is too short-term to take a long-term decision about a change in a family of schools. Those who should be involved in such decisions include affected feeder schools, schools in neighbouring authorities, dioceses, FE colleges and staff. They should all have a say, because the decision is important to all of them.
	As for the main thrust of school changes, young people aged 11 to 16 cannot wait, yet there has been much debate about process and things that would take many months to implement. On behalf of those young people, and particularly the children in my constituency, I want to see improvement from which they can benefit start soon. One high school in my constituency achieved GCSE pass rates this year of 74 per cent. Another school in my constituency, however, has been in special measures, and achieved a pass rate of only 20 per cent. I want to close that gap. I want to see improved and better-performing secondary schools in my constituency and generally.
	With other Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), I recently visited schools in Stockholm. We visited a municipal school and a free school. The latter is similar to a foundation or trust school as defined in the Bill. We felt—and I am sure that most Members would agree—that both schools seemed to work well. The young people at both schools were confident and enjoying their schools. The schools were different, however, and would probably suit different types of children. Stockholm's council cabinet member, in reply to our questions, said that the Social Democrats there would not change back from the system of free schools, as they had brought innovation and choice, which had caused improvements in the municipal schools in response.
	We need the possibility of innovation and improvement in our secondary schools. That must be accompanied by wide consultation, which will develop the consensus required. That is the way forward.

Sammy Wilson: As I have listened to the debate, I have felt like an outsider intruding on a family row. The debate has really been between the two warring factions of the family on the Labour Benches.
	However, while the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland has not had trust schools, it has had a body of schools with some degree of autonomy—voluntary grammar schools. Those have been subject to some local control, with the greatest control resting with the boards of governors and the headmasters who run those schools. That flexibility has been beneficial in making decisions. On Second Reading, the Democratic Unionist party supported the Government in their aim to increase the degree of diversity and autonomy where schools decided that they wished to have that. I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government have not been influenced by the forces on their Back Benches who wish to see substantial changes made to the Bill.
	As the debate has progressed, it has become clear that the argument about the local ballot has really been an argument about how those who know that they are likely to lose today's debate can find some way of thwarting the main elements of the Bill when it is implemented locally. The ballot is seen to be the means by which that will be done. [Hon. Members: "It is called democracy."] Hon. Members may say that, but in what system of democracy would such fundamental change, especially that which is designed to improve the quality of education for youngsters and have a dramatic impact on their lives, be subject to such a veto? Let us not forget that the argument about the ballot is really about placing a veto in the hands of one narrowly defined group of stakeholders—the parents of youngsters currently at the school. That is what would happen were the new clause to be accepted. Such a small group of people should not be handed the right to exercise a veto on something that would lead to such fundamental and, I believe, advantageous change.
	As some Members have pointed out, should not parents of children who might attend the school in future be involved? Should not parents of children who have not currently chosen the school but who might choose it were there a change of status also be involved? Why are they excluded? Why should we focus on such a narrow group of people and give them a veto? The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) did not tell us the reason why a veto should be given to people to change the nature of a school when the same veto would not be given to people on a more dramatic decision such as the closure of an unsustainable school. We would not dream of giving parents that veto, and it would not be practical to do so. However, those Members who tabled the amendments say that a veto should be given on a decision much less fundamental than that.

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Gentleman is speaking from long experience of wielding a veto in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that if the principle of a ballot of parents—which is not perfect, for many of the reasons that have been advanced—is conceded, it is open to the Government to table further amendments in the other place that address all the consultees that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) has mentioned? That would infinitely improve the process.

Sammy Wilson: According to my understanding of the Bill, parents will have the right to be consulted, as will others. The result of all that consultation must be collated, and a final decision must then be made. First, it must be established that a proper consultation process has been undertaken. Secondly, it must be established that all the arguments have been weighed up. After that, the change can be effected. In my view, that constitutes a much better safeguard than a provision allowing one narrow stakeholder group to have the right of veto.
	My second point was made earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). This will become a battleground. I do not want to intrude on another family embarrassment for the Labour party, but already, whether we like it or not, difficulties will have arisen for people who would have made money available for academies and the like. Those backers will already be reluctant to support some of the trust schools. Why should we place yet another barrier in their path, in the form of a fight over whether the status of schools should be changed?
	If this is indeed a good change, I want as few barriers as possible to be placed in the way of it. I think that the ballot would be divisive. Whether we like it or not, there are substantial forces ranged against the change. As usual, the teachers unions are on the wrong side of the argument. Local authorities, who will have a stake in the issue, will take a particular view. The argument will tend to be one-sided in many areas, and much more resources will be available to those who do not want change. Many of those who wish to engage in the foundation system will simply want to improve youngsters' education, rather than becoming involved in a political debate or a political fight.

David Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the views of the great and the good on the governing bodies should override hundreds, perhaps thousands, of views expressed by parents? I used to chair the governing body of a large school before I became an MP. The views of 1,600 students and possibly 3,000 parents might provide an overwhelming feedback on a trust school application, but it might be ignored just as though they were bolshie police authorities that did not want to be reorganised.

Sammy Wilson: That is an exaggeration, for the simple reason that the views of parents must be collected. The governing body's views will of course carry some weight as well, but, as has been said, the local authority will also be able to adjudicate, and to decide whether the balance of the argument has been correct. There is already a safeguard. Ultimately, however, if a governing body has identified deficiencies in a school that it has not been able to remedy with the existing resources and within the existing structure, of course it should have a large say in whether there should be a move to a new arrangement that could solve the school's difficulties.
	Earlier, we heard the enticing argument that a ballot somehow conferred a veneer of respectability and allowed an element of democracy to become involved. I do not believe that that will apply in this case. I do not believe that democratic rights should be handed to one particular group. For that reason, we shall be voting with the Government on the Bill.

Alan Johnson: I shall be brief. We have had a vigorous and extremely interesting debate on an important group of new clauses and amendments. I believe that we have established a satisfactory procedure for community schools. I hope that my points about diversity, which have been written on to the record and will be in regulations, will satisfy Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who I know feels strongly about the issue.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) raised some important points about safeguards. She said that the nine safeguards that I had listed were not in the Bill. Some are not in the Bill, but they are in statutory guidance and in regulations, which makes them very important. Four of them are in the Bill. The community cohesion provision will be there, if our new clause is carried. The provision for trust schools to be maintained schools is already there. The provision for trustees not to be involved in inappropriate activities is in statutory guidance, and the fact that trusts are incorporated charities, with all the safeguards that that involves, is in the Bill.
	The hon. Lady mentioned governors, and in particular, Criminal Records Bureau checks. Certain categories of person are disqualified from being school governors and will be disqualified from being trustees—for instance, those who have been banned from working with children or young persons—and enhanced checks will apply in all those cases.
	Let me now deal with what has become the central issue—ballots. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made an entertaining and good-natured speech about that. I believe that it has been blown up out of all proportion to the issue with which I was trying to deal when I tabled our new clauses and amendments. Talk about Wilberforce and slavery and women's suffrage suggests that we have gone just a teeny bit over the top.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is not present, but in an intervention earlier he paraphrased Neil Kinnock, saying that a Labour Secretary of State would disgracefully overrule an elected local authority by referring matters to the schools commissioner. That will not happen: nothing will be referred to the schools commissioner. While we are on the subject, let me add that local authorities will take on new powers as a result of the Bill. When the schools organisation committee, which currently makes a number of decisions, is disbanded, those decisions will be made by the local authority.
	The main issue, however, is whether in all circumstances trusts must ballot parents, and whether that is really central to the democratic process. Unlike Opposition Members, I do not argue that it will be open to left-wing groups to influence debate. My argument is perfectly rational: it is for the local governing body to consult. It must ensure that the consultation is fair, and the local authority will have a role in ensuring that it has been conducted properly and has reflected the views expressed. It may or may not decide to do that by means of a ballot.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made an interesting speech. He is entitled to his own views but, as an American politician once said, he is not entitled to his own facts. He said that trust status was irreversible. It is not. As I said at the outset, a minority—one third of the governors—can trigger the process of pulling out. Thereafter, it will be up to the other two thirds whether to vote in favour of retaining trust status.

Jon Trickett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: I will in a moment.
	Part of my hon. Friend's argument is that trusts are intrinsically evil and a terrible thing. On the basis of that view, he said that they would have their own admissions authority—that, indeed, they would be their own admissions authority. It is a fact that 30 per cent. of comprehensive schools are their own admissions authority. Being their own admissions authority means that the schools are part of the local authority family of schools. They comply with the national curriculum, they discuss and are part of the admissions forum, and they must apply all the rules that are not just in the Bill but in regulations—no selection, no interviews and so forth.

Jon Trickett: If my right hon. Friend will not accept my facts, will he accept those in the Bill? Clause 17(4) states:
	"None of the following alterations may be made to a maintained school".
	Subsection (c) lists one of those alterations, which is:
	"any change of category from foundation...school to community school".
	Is that not irrefutable evidence? I understand from a legal opinion that I received that it is possible for a foundation school to cease to have a foundation, but that it would still be a foundation school. So the preposterous situation could arise of a foundation school with no foundation, but there is no possibility of a foundation school—or trust, in effect—becoming a comprehensive school. My right hon. Friend says that we think that trust schools are evil. Well, we do. We want to see them rejected.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is describing the situation at the moment. I do not want to get into discussing the intricacies of a foundation school with or without a foundation, but there is a problem with his argument, which he has repeated. The argument seems to be that there is one group of schools called comprehensives and another called trusts, or foundation schools—but that is not the case. Many comprehensive schools are foundation schools.
	A ballot is not a touchstone for democracy. We have had these debates on many occasions; indeed, we had them in the trade union movement. To put the argument on a different level, this House debated whether there should be a referendum on the European Convention, or whether Parliament should take the decision. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a very good point about ballots in the context of schools. No one is seeking a ballot on school closures.
	Let me take the argument a little further. Members of this House have accepted that a change—a big one—can be made from a voluntary-aided to a voluntary-controlled school without the need for a ballot, and without falling to the floor sobbing because of a breach of a great democratic principle. A community school or a voluntary-controlled school can move to foundation school status by a simple vote of the governing body. We can expand a school without balloting parents; indeed, many such expansions involve adding on a special educational needs unit, which has a much more profound effect on the school than changing to trust status. However, no one is suggesting that not having a ballot in those circumstances is somehow a breach of democracy.
	We are blowing this issue out of all proportion. Trust schools are not grant-maintained schools. The Bill rectifies many anomalies, some of which have existed for 62 years, since the Education Act 1944—the Butler Act. Others that it rectifies, relating to discipline and behaviour, have existed for 20 years, since the time of the Elton report. The real reason why I object to this characterisation is that it suggests that we are arguing for the creation of grant-maintained schools. We are not, and we should not get the two concepts confused. To argue that there should be a ballot in all such circumstances because that is what happened in other situations is to fall into that trap.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall give way once—to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).

Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that he does not want to discuss the issue of ballots completely out of context. That context is a package of safeguards that we are reasonably seeking in respect of a very important change to a school's status. Concerns have been expressed about the composition of governing bodies. The Bill stipulates that trusts can appoint a majority of trustees to the governing body, and there is a maximum percentage for LEA-appointed governors. Will my right hon. Friend consider tabling in the other place an amendment stipulating a minimum percentage of elected parent governors on a trust school's governing body?

Alan Johnson: No. The 20 per cent. limit is right—but my hon. Friend has reminded me of another issue. A Labour-controlled local authority in Yorkshire—I will not name it in case that would embarrass him, although I doubt whether it would—is keen to introduce trusts as part of the building schools for the future programme. Indeed, the representatives of that authority came to visit me only this week. Insisting that there must be a ballot on every occasion when a school changes to trust status would breach another democratic principle, which my hon. Friend has helpfully reminded me of—that elected local authorities have a role to play. Many local authorities throughout the country will want to take advantage of these provisions.
	Let us not get this issue out of proportion. We are not countering the argument advanced by some of my hon. Friends that there must be ballots in all circumstances with the argument that there can never be ballots. We say that it is a matter for the local governing body to decide, and for parents themselves to decide as part of that process. It is up to the local authority to decide whether the consultation process was good. Arguing that there has to be a ballot in every circumstance and on every occasion, irrespective of the background, is not a sensible proposition.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Ballot of parents on change of category from community school to foundation school

'(1) A proposal for a prescribed alteration involving a change of category from community school to foundation school may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).'. — [Mr. Grogan.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 412.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 53
	 — 
	Duty to encourage schools to become self-governing and to acquire a trust

'(1) A person to whom this section applies shall ensure that their functions relating to maintained schools are (so far as they are capable of being exercised) exercised with a view to encouraging all maintained schools to become self-governing, and to acquire a foundation.
	(2) In this section "self-governing" in relation to a maintained school means a foundation, voluntary aided or foundation special school, or an Academy.
	(3) This section applies to—
	(a) a local education authority in England;
	(b) the Secretary of State.'. — [Mr. Gibb.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 376.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Invitation for proposals for establishment of new schools

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 7, line 18, leave out
	'with the consent of the Secretary of State'
	and insert
	'if section (Proposals under section 7 relating to community or community special schools) permits them to do so'. — [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Clause 31
	 — 
	Requirements as to foundations

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 21, line 39, leave out 'and'.
	No. 44, in page 21, line 40, at end insert
	' and
	(c) it has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the advancement of the education of pupils at the school or schools in respect of which it acts as the foundation.'.
	No. 45, in page 21, line 40, at end insert—
	'(2A) The foundation of a school to which this section applies shall, in carrying out its functions in relation to the school, promote community cohesion.'.
	No. 46, in page 22, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
	'(5) Regulations may disqualify persons from acting as charity trustee in relation to a school to which this section applies.'.
	No. 47, in page 22, line 23, at end insert—
	' "purpose" includes object'. — [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Proposals for establishment or discontinuance of schools in england

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 121, line 38, leave out 'local education' and insert 'relevant'.
	No. 84, in page 124, line 39, leave out 'local education' and insert 'relevant'.
	No. 85, in page 124, line 43, leave out 'local education' and insert 'relevant'.
	No. 86, in page 125, line 18, leave out 'a local education' and insert 'the relevant'.
	No. 71, in page 125, line 24, leave out 'local education' and insert 'relevant'.
	No. 72, in page 125, line 26, leave out 'local education' and insert 'relevant'.
	No. 73, in page 127, line 38, after '8' insert
	'and not referred to the adjudicator'.
	No. 74, in page 128, line 24, after 'proposals' insert 'under section 14'.
	No. 75, in page 128, line 32, leave out 'a local education' and insert 'the relevant'.— [Huw Irranca-Davies.]

New Clause 34
	 — 
	Offences relating to independent schools

'(1) Part 10 of EA 2002 (independent schools) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 168 insert—
	"168A Proceedings for offences
	No proceedings for an offence under this Chapter shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the registration authority.
	168B Offences by bodies corporate
	(1) Where an offence under this Chapter committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—
	(a) any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
	(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,
	he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
	(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as it applies to a director of a body corporate.
	168C Offences by unincorporated bodies
	(1) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under this Chapter by an unincorporated body are to be brought in the name of that body (and not in that of any of its members) and, for the purposes of any such proceedings, any rules of court relating to the service of documents have effect as if that body were a corporation.
	(2) A fine imposed on an unincorporated body on its conviction of an offence under this Chapter is to be paid out of the funds of that body.
	(3) If an unincorporated body is charged with an offence under this Chapter, section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Schedule 3 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procedure on charge of an offence against a corporation) apply as they do in relation to a body corporate.
	(4) Where an offence under this Chapter committed by an unincorporated body (other than a partnership) is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer of the body or any member of its governing body, he as well as the body is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
	(5) Where an offence under this Chapter committed by a partnership is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner, he as well as the partnership is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
	(3) In section 159 (unregistered schools), omit subsection (3).
	(4) Sections 168B and 168C of EA 2002 do not have effect in relation to offences committed before the commencement of this section.'. — [Phil Hope.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 69 and 79.

Phil Hope: New clause 34 will allow the registration authority for independent schools to institute proceedings against any person or persons who commit any offence relating to independent schools, as set out in chapter 1 of part 10 of the Education Act 2002. The registration authority in England is the Secretary of State and the authority in Wales is the National Assembly for Wales.
	Subsection (2) of the new clause also clarifies the existing powers for proceedings to be instituted. It allows the registration authority to institute proceedings and requires the authority to give consent before any other body institutes such proceedings. The clause also extends that authority to all offences in chapter 1. Such authority had previously been directed at those operating an unregistered—illegal—school. The measure will enable the registration authority to prosecute after the provision comes into force for offences committed before or after the commencement of the provision.
	The new clause also extends the definition of who may be prosecuted to include bodies corporate and specified members of that body. It is increasingly common for independent schools to be owned and managed by companies, rather than sole proprietors. The existing provision allows for the prosecution of a person, but the new clause reflects more accurately current practice in the independent sector. The new clause further extends the definition to cover unincorporated bodies and partnerships and their members for the same reasons.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause is a consequential amendment in view of the extension of the authority of the Secretary of State and the Assembly to all offences in chapter 1. Subsection (4) of the new clause provides that the provisions extending the definition of those who may be prosecuted will not have effect in relation to offences committed before the commencement date. Government amendments Nos. 69 and 79 are consequential amendments.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Duty in relation to allegations against teachers

'(1) This section applies where it is alleged that a teacher or member of staff, including a volunteer at an educational institution providing education for persons under 18 years of age, has—
	(a) behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child,
	(b) committed a criminal offence against or related to a child, or
	(c) behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates he is unsuitable to work with children.
	(2) Any person involved in investigating such an allegation must act with a view to ensuring the confidentiality of any information that might identify—
	(a) the person who made the allegation;
	(b) the person in respect of whom the allegation is made.
	(3) The governing body of a maintained school shall in particular ensure that policies and procedures in relation to allegations against teachers or members of staff provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any teacher or member of staff who discloses any information to which subsection (2) applies without the express authorisation of the governing body.
	(4) This section ceases to apply—
	(a) in the case of a criminal offence, where the teacher or member of staff is found guilty in a court in respect of the offence, or
	(b) in other cases, when at the completion of investigation and consideration of the allegation it has been determined that the allegation is proved.'. — [Mr. Willetts.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Willetts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in title, line 9, at end insert
	'to make provision in relation to allegations against teachers;'.

David Willetts: New clause 1 would place a duty on individuals investigating allegations against teachers to ensure the confidentiality of information that might identify the alleged offender until the allegation had been proven. It would place a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to ensure that its school policy provided for disciplinary action to be taken against any member of staff who disclosed such information.
	We were concerned to ensure that the new clause was within the terms of the Bill, which was why we drafted it in such a way. We realise that it might have been simpler to provide for full anonymity that was backed up by a criminal penalty, but as that would be a criminal justice measure, we understand that it would be outside the scope of an education Bill. We have tabled the new clause in such a form because it is the best way of which we are aware of trying to provide greater protection for teachers within the scope of the Bill.
	I assure the Government that we would not die in the last ditch about the exact form that the provision should take. The Government have access to parliamentary draftsmen, and there might be other mechanisms that the Minister can propose that would achieve the same objective of providing much more protection for teachers who face such allegations than they have at the moment. We hope to hear tonight from the Government a clear commitment in principle to legislate in some way, ideally through the Bill, to tackle a source of deep distress and concern to many teachers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with worrying cases in which teachers are accused, often without any foundation whatsoever, of assaulting a child in some way. The allegations might not even lead to charges, but the name of the teacher can be dragged through the media because it has leaked out.
	That can severely damage their professional reputation and cause them enormous personal distress. Sadly, in many cases it can ruin their lives. They simply do not have the protection that the Opposition believe they deserve. The Minister will be familiar with the examples assembled by SecEd as part of an impressive campaign, to which I pay tribute. I shall cite two of those examples. In 2001, a 47-year-old teacher was arrested and charged with actual bodily harm and common assault after she spilled fruit juice on a pupil's head. The case was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but she was still mentioned in the national and local press. She was harassed and threatened by neighbours, and could not go shopping without exciting public recognition. She finally took long-term sick leave as a result of anxiety and depression. That is an example of the problems caused when such allegations surface in the press.
	In a later case, a teacher was accused of physically assaulting a pupil and, as a result, a front-page story appeared in the local newspaper. After interviewing the teacher, the police decided not to take action, but the newspaper reported inaccurately that the Crown Prosecution Service wished to press charges. Eventually, it published a small apology. Colleagues on both sides of the House will be aware of other incidents that cause teachers great concern. There are arguments about whether the protection of anonymity should extend only to the point at which charges are brought or to the point at which someone is found guilty of an offence. We are happy to listen to the opinions of Members on both sides of the House, but we should all accept that teachers have been lost to the teaching profession following the broadcast of unfounded allegations in the media that ruin their lives.
	The NASUWT has raised the matter with us and, I am sure, with the Minister, too. Its president, Brian Garvey, said at its annual conference earlier this year:
	"Respect for authority has undoubtedly diminished and this is visible in all areas of society, not just in schools...I was walking through my local village recently and overheard a youth of about 15 saying to his mother that a friend of his had one ambition and that was to get a teacher sacked before he left school."
	Such allegations are used deliberately by a tiny minority of pupils to undermine teachers' authority and demoralise them. Sadly, they sometimes succeed, so hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to provide tougher protection for teachers in those circumstance.
	I accept that there is enormous sensitivity about the treatment of sex offenders and that it is important to be as rigorous as possible when there is any such risk to children. However, the general secretary of the NASUWT has pressed for anonymity:
	"This is not an attempt to protect those who abuse children. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated...Providing anonymity does not hinder a proper investigation or protect abusers. It simply enables justice to be done in a civilised and fair manner, strengthening the principle of innocent until proven guilty and avoiding trial by media."
	The statistics reveal the scale of the problem. Of 1,782 accusations of abuse against members of the NASUWT in 2005, only 69 resulted in conviction. Many members of teaching unions report that they have been the victim of exaggerated, false or malicious allegations of child abuse, but in many instances there was no case to answer.
	The Government have already made some progress in tackling the problem. The guidance safeguarding children in education and dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers and other staff is a welcome step forward. We strongly support the guidance, which contains a paragraph on confidentiality with which we agree. It states:
	"Every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against unwanted publicity while an allegation is being investigation/considered."
	It goes on to say that
	"the police will not normally provide any information to the Press or media that might identify an individual who is under investigation".

David Drew: What happens if the loss of confidentiality occurs through the arrest process? It is not unknown for the police to have spoken to somebody. Is action possible against the police for failing to protect the confidentiality of that individual?

David Willetts: That would not be possible within the framework of the new clause that we propose, as it relates only to educational establishments. There is an argument for wider protection for teachers, which would require provisions under criminal justice legislation that go beyond the Bill. If it could be shown that there had been a leak from the police contrary to the Government's existing guidance, I hope that that would be an offence and that people would have some redress. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for us, with our advisers, to put that in a new clause that would be in order. We have not been able to crack that within the framework of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister has better advice.
	We are suggesting that the current guidance should have greater legal force. It should have full statutory force, and people who breach the provisions on confidentiality in the guidance should be committing an offence. That is what we are trying to achieve. If I may say so, I think the arguments in favour of our approach would be widely appreciated across the House.
	We all know that in terms of a balance of rights and responsibilities, many people in the teaching profession feel that they are on the receiving end of a rights culture which is sometimes skilfully understood by extremely young children, but that the rights of teachers are not properly protected. There is a strong case for giving teachers at least a right to anonymity similar to that which those who accuse them often enjoy.

David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and he is doing the right thing by moving the new clause. If a child has made an allegation against a teacher, the child, as a minor, enjoys confidentiality. What happens if the parent of that child chooses to make the same allegation against the teacher? What recourse is there against the adult? A court case may follow, but in the meantime the teacher has lost their confidentiality.

David Willetts: If a parent has broken the confidentiality in those circumstances, that should be an offence. The protection that we are trying to provide for teachers is a general protection. The hon. Gentleman is right. The protection of anonymity is enjoyed only by children. Often it is the child versus the teacher. We want as much protection as possible for teachers when they face such allegations.
	I know that there are arguments against what we are proposing. One argument—which we hear from people who have reputations that we respect for their work with children who are genuine victims of abuse—is that children already find it difficult to make allegations of abuse, that many children suffer in silence, and that the proposal may make it even harder for them in future. The evidence that I quoted earlier shows that that is not the problem. The problem appears to be the very high proportion of allegations against teachers which are not well founded and which do not lead to a charge, let alone a successful conviction, but which cause enormous distress to many teachers, in some cases causing them to leave the teaching profession.
	It should be possible in some way or other for the Government to put the proposed guidance on to a clear statutory basis. We would like to go wider by, for example, implementing some of the proposals in the Home Affairs Committee fifth report, which recommended the protection of anonymity for defendants in such cases, at least until charges are made. We need clear statutory action, but in pressing for the problem to be tackled, we are speaking on behalf of many people within the teaching profession who find the use of allegations against them an increasing source of concern. Even if our particular drafting today is imperfect, I hope that it is possible for the Minister to indicate that the Government are committed to tackling the problem.

Annette Brooke: As we approached this short debate, I was particularly struck by the headline of one of the many newspaper articles on this issue, "Crippling the life of a teacher is child's play". I share many of the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). All too often, teachers are subject to allegations that later prove to be either malicious or exaggerated, but the damage done to a career or to someone's personal integrity can last a lifetime and often cannot be undone. An innocent person can have their life destroyed, which, as the hon. Member for Havant has said, is not the usual presumption in British justice.
	We have some concerns about the particular approach in new clause 1, but I hope that we can reach an agreement, because we all agree that more protection is needed for teachers. Anonymity up to the point of conviction is a particular concern. In past debates—for example, the debate on the Sexual Offences Act 2003—Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers came together on Report to argue for anonymity up to the point of charge. We felt that there was a strong case, which would have covered teachers.
	There is a low conviction rate of teachers who are accused by pupils. That is extremely serious, and I would like some research to be undertaken on that point, because there must be something wrong with the processes of the Crown Prosecution Service if the conviction rate is particularly low. In other words, why is that the outcome in so many cases? What can be done to investigate the process from charge to conviction and the unusual outcome of so many teachers being found innocent? It seems to me that something fundamental must be wrong.
	The police are currently urged not to release the names of school staff unless staff are charged, and there is guidance on that matter, which we discussed at great length during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Although the guidance will probably be effective, the big issue is that someone else could go to the press, which would lead to the story's publication. Sadly, before the case that was mentioned previously, one of the youngest mothers in England was living in my constituency. It is possible that the parents sold the story to the press. One never knows who is going to do that. We always have to take on board how we are going to cope with any restrictions on the press.
	When it comes to child protection, we need to listen to the children's organisations. We may need to build in a provision whereby reporting restrictions could be lifted in extreme cases involving really serious accusations, because it may be, for whatever reason, that that particular person must be identified. I should like everything to be turned on end. The widespread publicity that we see now should be the exception rather than the rule, and a court should have to give permission for it.
	The National Union of Teachers is urging the Government to try to use the amendment to introduce legal protection. Its general secretary said:
	"The question the Government should be asking itself is whether there is a workable way of protecting teachers from mass publicity."
	That is what this is all about. The guidance that was introduced last November has been very helpful, and it sets out the issues, which are well rehearsed. However, we need something with stronger teeth than mere guidance. We are looking to the Government to come up with a statutory way of giving teachers much greater protection. There should be anonymity up to the point of charging, not trial and judgment by the media beforehand. I hope that we can move forward and achieve a consensus on this, because it involves some important principles on which we are in thorough agreement.

Nadine Dorries: It is a long time since I was in a school classroom and had a blackboard rubber lobbed at me for talking. I hate to think what would happen to a teacher who did that today, although I am not that old and it was not that long ago. We would not have dreamed of taking action against a teacher or accusing a teacher of anything. Unfortunately, things have changed. One teacher recently said to me of her classroom, "It's a war zone in there." Today's pupils grow up in a rights-aware society—they are rights-savvy. They know what their rights are, and some use them in a way that we would not expect. Indeed, parents encourage them to do so.
	We ask our teachers to put up with an incredible amount in the classroom because society has changed. We live in a society where one in four nurses is attacked in an accident and emergency department on a Saturday night.

Jim Devine: When the hon. Lady's party was in power, it introduced the patient's charter, but not the staff charter. Do we need something like that now?

Nadine Dorries: I have no idea. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) could answer that one for me. It is a good suggestion. The Royal College of Nursing may be considering it.
	Society is changing its attitudes. We know what society thinks of politicians, journalists, nurses and doctors, so it is no surprise that in the classroom, teachers are facing similar problems. It does not happen in the majority of schools. My two children attend a comprehensive school where, fortunately, discipline levels are good. There is an exchange of respect that has been well worked out between the staff and the students; all credit to the headmaster for that. However, that is not the case everywhere. It must be scary for some teachers to work in particular classrooms, knowing that they cannot take any action and that, even if they held on to a child to restrain it, they could find themselves in difficulties.
	The amendment does not propose total anonymity for teachers, regardless of whether they are in the right. Once due scrutiny of any accusations against a teacher has taken place and a process has been undertaken, if the teacher is found guilty, that should be in the public domain. However, the new clause would provide protection in the initial phase when the facts are not clear and nobody knows whether the teacher is guilty or whether the allegations constitute malicious behaviour on the part of one or a group of students.
	I know a story that is similar to the one told earlier. It involves a group of girls and a science teacher—the teacher who told me that the classroom is a war zone. The group of girls was out to get that teacher because she was of the old school and a disciplinarian. She taught science, which is difficult to teach and requires the full attention of the class. However, the fact that the girls were out to get her shows the mentality of some of the students teachers have to deal with.
	If we want to get the best people into the teaching profession and attract the brightest and best to teach our children, we must offer them protection when they are in the classroom. They must know that their lives will not be destroyed by a one-off accusation that a pupil can make at any time for no particular reason. They have to know that teaching is a career in which they can progress and that it will not be halted or destroyed through no fault of their own, but by the actions of a malicious student.
	I fully support the new clause and hope that the Government will consider it favourably and offer teachers the protection that they need. Perhaps we can consider doing that for nurses, too, through a staff charter.

David Drew: As someone who spent 10 years as a teacher trade unionist and represented teachers in difficult circumstances, I am thankful that I did not have a case of a teacher suspended in the circumstances that we are considering. However, I know of cases that resulted in people having their names dragged through the newspapers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their actions, that was a trial in itself.
	There are two problems that make the new clause unworkable because of the way in which it is framed, but I have great sympathy with what Opposition Front Benchers are trying to do. First, the nature of the allegation will almost certainly result in a teacher's suspension—sometimes for their own good, given the way in which the rumour mill works in schools. A suspension means that a teacher loses some anonymity because it is difficult to hold the line on why someone has been suspended. When an allegation is made, the fact that some cases can take not only months but years to come to court puts such great pressure on the teacher that it adds to the unacceptable position. Something may therefore have to happen to try to bring those cases to some form of resolution much more quickly.
	Secondly, I know of cases in which allegations have been made against a teacher, not in the context of the school or teaching activity there, but something else that the teacher does, for example, being a swimming coach. I shall not go into too much detail because this relates to a genuine case. An allegation could be made against a teacher who was also a swimming coach—nothing to do with the teaching or the fact that the person may also teach swimming at school. This was an allegation that had been made outside school.
	How should such allegations be handled? Proceedings might be taken in such cases, but does the fact that they might be taken against a teacher mean that that teacher should have additional protection? Or should the teacher be treated in exactly the same way as any other adult? If charges were brought, they would of course lose their anonymity, if they had not already done so.
	One of the downsides of being a teacher is that, rather like politicians, some people will always want to try them, regardless of the truth and of the process involved. Sadly, people make allegations and come to conclusions as to whether a person is innocent or guilty. I have raised these points simply to seek clarification from my own Front Bench.

Angela Watkinson: I should like to speak briefly in favour of new clause 1, and I want to illustrate its importance by sharing with the House a story about someone known to me personally. This is a case exactly like those that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned in his opening remarks.
	I should preface my remarks by saying that they do not refer to a constituent of mine or to anyone who teaches in a school in my constituency. They refer to a very experienced teacher whom I know personally. He had a false accusation made against him, although of course it was not immediately known that it was false. He was suspended straight away, as one would expect, pending an investigation. The story immediately got into the local newspapers, however, and he was vilified and lost his reputation.
	It took two years for the case to come to court, during which time my acquaintance had been unable to teach. He was found not guilty, but that did him no good whatever. His reputation had gone, and he had lost his home in the meantime. The local education authority, notwithstanding the court's decision, was very reluctant to accept him back on to the supply teachers list. It took another two years before the authority felt confident enough to allow him to go on to the list.
	My acquaintance then began to get jobs in local schools. The head teacher would be pleased with him, as he would settle in well and develop a good rapport with the children. After a few weeks, however, as sure as night follows day, the gossip would start at the school gates. "Oh, that was the teacher—you remember the one—that we read about in the local papers." I should add that the local papers had printed a very small comment to the effect that he had been found not guilty. So the head teacher would ask him to leave. He would then find another job, but the same thing would happen again and again.
	After three or four attempts to get back into the teaching profession, this man decided that it was impossible to recover his career. So a good teacher had been lost to the profession. Furthermore, he had been a lifelong foster parent, but as soon as the accusation had been made, he had been removed from the foster parents list. This is someone whose earlier foster children came to visit him with their children, whom he regards as his own grandchildren. He had had decades of blameless foster parenting.
	This man had also spent decades as a scout leader. He would take his scout pack out every summer washing cars, cutting hedges and mowing people's lawns to earn their own money so that he could take them on holiday every year at no expense to their parents. In other words, he is just one of life's good eggs. The boy who had made the false accusation turned out to have been aggrieved because he had been dropped from the football team as a punishment for larking about. But this man has now been lost to the teaching profession, lost to the fostering service and lost to the scout movement. His reputation is irrecoverable.
	That is why it is so important that all possible protection be given up to the point at which charges are brought. That would not have helped in the case that I have described, because once this man got to court, he was found not guilty. I take the point made by other Members that even if it is an offence for other people to leak such stories, it is of no great comfort to the accused person, as the very fact that their name is in the public domain means that their reputation is lost. That should not stop us at least trying to control that and giving some protection to the good reputation of teachers who have been wrongly accused.

Robert Wilson: It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). She made a number of valid and telling points, using a compelling example of how a life can be utterly destroyed. I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I have been encouraged gently by my Front-Bench colleagues to do so—as I value my career, of course I will do so. That apart, this is also an important and interesting debate in which to participate.
	New clause 1 is extremely important, as it supports that ancient British legal right of being innocent until proven guilty. There is an old saying that mud sticks. Let me tell the House that it is at its stickiest when accusations involve teachers and other members of school staff. That is why privacy is so important when accusations are thrown around. The allegation that a teacher has harmed a child, committed a criminal offence against a child or behaved in an unsuitable way can have long-term repercussions. For example, the family life of the person and his wife and children can be put under strain. The whole school community can be affected—such allegations shock a school community. They are not a trivial, silly or straightforward matter.
	My concern is that once the mud is thrown, some of it will stick, even if the accusations are later proven to be untrue. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), whose constituency name I always find a tongue-twister, made an important point about the current low conviction rates in relation to teachers who are accused. If a teacher is accused of being a paedophile—of sexually interfering with a child—their reputation and family life would be destroyed, even if there is not a shred of evidence to support that allegation.
	We all know that some children can stretch the truth or muddle the facts. Therefore, we must know the veracity of the claims before anything is made public. We all know from our constituencies that the press loves nothing more than a scandal at the local school and we also know that that coverage is often blown out of all proportion to the actual events at the school.
	We also need to be aware, however, that we should not protect the guilty. The new clause strikes the right balance, however, between protecting the innocent and ensuring that the guilty are exposed. It builds on some of the work started by the Government, which appears useful and which we can all support, so I hope that the Government can offer reciprocal support to the new clause.

Sammy Wilson: As someone who taught for 23 years, I recognise the importance of this issue, especially in more recent times, to those in the teaching profession. When I left the teaching profession about 10 years ago, it was not such a prevalent concern. For many who are still teaching, however, their worst nightmare is to have an allegation of assault or abuse of a child made against them. That can not only ruin their career but put terrific strain on their family lives. Several teachers with whom I served and several who are constituents have come to me about well-publicised cases in Northern Ireland.
	I want to make three points about this new clause. First, in the absence of anonymity there is an incentive for youngsters to make allegations because they know that those allegations can have an almost immediate impact. I do not think it insignificant that over the past few years the number of allegations against teachers has increased fourfold. That may lead to one of two conclusions. Either the quality of the teaching profession and those who enter it is becoming worse, or youngsters who are now imbued with a knowledge of their rights, and who may want to be spiteful to teachers, are tending to use such allegations as a way of destroying a teacher's life. I suspect that that is the more likely explanation.
	Secondly, in an era in which we are extremely sensitive to allegations made by youngsters and newspapers are happy to take up lurid stories, boards of governors and headmasters react immediately to such allegations and, moreover, want to be seen to react. In one case in Northern Ireland, in the wake of a scandal that had been well publicised in the local newspaper following an allegation made against a teacher, the members of the board of governors tripped over themselves to state publicly that they had dealt with the matter by suspending the teacher. The teacher was named in the local press. The governors thought that they were doing the right thing. They believed that they were protecting themselves. "What a good board of governors we are," they said. "We have taken immediate action, and have told people that we have done so"—which had not happened in the last case that had featured in the paper. The teacher was found not guilty of the serious abuse that had been alleged, and the effect on him and his family was devastating.
	My third point is this. The Government rightly want to attract the highest calibre of people into the teaching profession. That is one way of raising standards in schools. If such a disincentive is presented to teachers, however, it will be more difficult to attract good candidates. Who wants to put himself in a position in which not only his career but his family life can be ruined as a result of spurious allegations? I think that the new clause is right to propose the granting of anonymity up to the point of conviction, given the low conviction rate.
	I suspect that that low conviction rate is yet more evidence that when such allegations are made, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are very sensitive about the issue and will therefore give the benefit of the doubt and let the court make the decision. As a result, some cases probably go to court that in other realms would not go to court, and that compounds the problem for the teacher.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised two issues. First, he pointed out that on suspension a teacher loses anonymity to an extent. That is true, but at least the new clause does not encourage a board of governors to rush to take away that anonymity. In fact, it charges boards of governors with a duty to protect it. While the new clause may not be perfect and may not protect teachers completely, and while there may be instances in which—as a result of suspension and news on the bush telegraph—a teacher will named, it gives more protection than exists at present.
	I believe that the Government should accept at least the essence of the proposal. That is the right thing to do if we are to protect teachers from false allegations. It is also the right thing to do if we want to attract high-quality people to what is a very honourable profession.

Jim Knight: I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), expressed through this new clause, to protect teachers and other members of staff from the damaging effects of allegation. I share that concern and I am keenly aware, through my experiences as a Member of Parliament, a parent and a child, of the profound effect that false or unfounded allegations can have on a person's health, family or career—the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave one such profound example—and of how publicity can then make the impact of those allegations much more severe.
	Equally, it has been my experience as a governor that some allegations of abuse are true. Being abused by a person in a position of trust and authority, such as a teacher, can have a similarly devastating effect on a child. It is because we have to strike that balance that we must be very careful in seeking to address this problem, which Members in all parts of the House want to address. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) quoted the National Union of Teachers asking the Government to use this provision to find a workable way of protecting teachers from false allegation. We should continue to improve the guidance and to try to find a workable method, but it is certainly a complicated issue, as I shall try to sketch out.
	In 2004, my Department's five-year strategy for children and learners included a commitment to defending teachers from false allegations, to ensuring that teachers are not subjected to damaging delays where their integrity is in question, and to ensuring that swift action can be taken against those who made false allegations. That strategy was informed by research, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked. The Department has in recent years put in place an audit of allegations against education staff, and the results have been published. I will make sure that a copy of those results is made available in the House Library for the hon. Lady and other Members to peruse. In 2003-04, for example, the bulk of allegations were resolved outside the courts. Of the 2 per cent. that were considered by the courts, 71 resulted in conviction. According to the research, some 23 per cent. of cases resulted in disciplinary action within schools.
	Following discussions with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, my Department consulted on new arrangements for handling allegations against teachers and other education staff. Last November, we issued guidance on this issue in England, to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. Governing bodies of all schools and further education institutions must take account of this guidance in making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The revised version of "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued this April in England, also contains overarching guidance that can be applied to allegations against anyone working with children in any setting. It is important that we think about other people who work with children. In my own constituency, for example, there has been a series of allegations against prison officers working at a young offenders institution, which have been equally distressing for the people concerned.
	As drafted, the new clause—I accept that the hon. Member for Havant said that the drafting may not be perfect—would apply only to teachers, other staff and volunteers in schools and further education institutions. However, as I said, they are not the only people who can be affected by allegations. Publicity about an allegation of abuse can have equally devastating effects for anyone who works with children. Department for Education and Skills guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. But it also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the police may need to disclose the identity of a person under investigation.
	Publicity can be helpful to an accused person in gathering support and bringing forward evidence on his or her behalf. There have been examples where responsible investigative journalism has brought to light cases of abuse. Freedom to report cases is an essential part of our criminal justice system, and we must take it very seriously.
	The present system of self-regulation, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, provides safeguards—no doubt not perfect—against the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. Certainly, hon. Members have reason to say that those safeguards might not be perfect. The PCC has recently revised its guidance on such matters. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said about the police. ACPO has strengthened its guidance to police forces, aimed at preventing people from being identified if they are not charged with a criminal offence.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause sets out that policies and procedures should provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any teacher or member of staff who discloses any information about an allegation without the express permission of the governing body. Schools are free to include that sort of detail in their policies on allegations, and governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that such policies are in place.
	Governors should bear in mind the fact that the use of reasonable force by teachers will be allowed under clause 85. I hope that that will avoid some of the examples of unfounded allegations of bodily harm and assault that have been highlighted in the press and to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. On the basis of what he said, it sounded as though those cases involved the use of reasonable force. I hope that other measures in the Bill will also help in that respect. Legislation is already in place that permits the suspension of governors for up to six months if they breach confidentiality, and appointed governors can also be removed.
	I respect greatly the reason why the issue has been raised. We have had a useful and, I hope, sensitive debate. I do not think that the House should want to divide on the issue, because I do not think that we are divided about its essence. We all agree with the intent and essence of what the Opposition are trying to do with the new clause.

David Willetts: I had hoped that we could avoid dividing the House, but to help us to reach a decision, can the Minister give any indication that the Government will consider legislating to tackle the problem, because voluntary codes or codes for governing bodies are not enough?

Jim Knight: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that this is enough—is that I am very happy to consider, with my ministerial colleagues, whether statutory force is needed. I am sympathetic to his argument, but if we decide that such force is needed, it would need full consultation, because we could not restrict it simply to teachers; we would need to think about all the people who work with children and their vulnerability to false allegations. I am not sure whether we could get that right in time to include it in the Bill. I am being completely frank with him: I very much doubt whether we could come back with an amendment on the issue in the other place, but I will work with him, other hon. Members and ministerial colleagues to find out whether there is a way to improve the situation for everyone who works with children in this country, without jeopardising the safety of children—something that is important to all of us.

David Willetts: I am trying to find a way forward, because I fully understand that we do not particularly want to divide the House if we can avoid it. Is he willing to meet a group of hon. Members to consider what the options might be to legislate beyond the code, which, although admirable, is sadly not sufficient, while recognising that such provisions might not be included in the Bill?

Jim Knight: Of course I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and have that discussion, although I cannot give a commitment to legislate, as I have said. On the basis of the reassurance that I have given, I hope that he will be happy to withdraw the motion.

Annette Brooke: Will that be a cross-party meeting?

Jim Knight: The hon. Lady got in just in time. As she is my neighbour, I know that she takes the issue of children's rights very seriously, so I am naturally happy to extend the invitation to her. I hope that that consensus will allow us to move on to other issues.

David Willetts: I had hoped that the Minister would be able to go a bit further. I realise that our new clause is not the ideal way to tackle the problem, but I had hoped that he could have given a Government commitment to legislate on it in some way or other. However, he has undertaken to meet us and to consider legislation, even if not through this Bill, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Acceptance of school rules a condition of admission

'An admission authority may make it a condition of a child's admission to a school that the parent of a child agrees to secure compliance with any school rules made by the headteacher of that school.'. — [Mr. Hayes.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10— Home-school contracts—
	'(1) Section 111 of SSFA 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit subsections (4)(b), (4)(c) and (5)
	(3) After subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) A governing body of a school to which section 110(1) applies or the local education authority where it is the admission authority for such a school may make it a condition of being admitted to the school that the parental declaration is signed in respect of the child."
	(4) In the heading of sections 110 (home-school agreements) and 111 (supplementary provisions about home-school agreements) for "agreements" substitute "contracts".'.
	New clause 11— Home-school contracts (no. 2)—
	'(1) SSFA 1998 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 111 insert—
	"Home-school contracts
	111A Home-school contracts
	(1) The governing body of a school which is—
	(a) a maintained school, or
	(b) a city technology college, a city college for the technology of the arts or an Academy,
	may adopt a home-school contract for the school, together with a parental declaration to be used in connection with the contract.
	(2) For the purposes of this section and section 111 a 'home-school contract' is a statement specifying—
	(a) the school's aims and values;
	(b) the school's responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of pupils at the school who are of compulsory school age;
	(c) the parental responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the parents of such pupils are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered pupils at the school; and
	(d) the school's expectations of its pupils, namely the expectations of the school as regards the conduct of such pupils while they are registered pupils there;
	and 'parental declaration' means a document to be used by qualifying parents for recording that they take note of the school's aims and values and its responsibilities and that they acknowledge and accept the parental responsibilities and the school's expectations of its pupils.
	(3) The governing body shall take reasonable steps to secure that the parental declaration is signed by every qualifying parent.
	(4) An admissions authority may make it a condition of a child being admitted to the school that the parental declaration is signed in respect of the child.
	(5) An admissions authority may not—
	(a) invite any person to sign the parental declaration at a time when the child in question has not been admitted to the school, or
	(b) make any decision as to whether or not to admit a child to the school by reference to whether any such declaration is or is not likely to be signed in respect of the child.
	(6) Subsections (3) and (4) do not require the governing body to seek the signature of a qualifying parent if, having regard to any special circumstances relating to the parent or the pupil in question, they consider that it would be inappropriate to do so.
	(7) Where the governing body considers that a registered pupil at the school has a sufficient understanding of the home-school contract as it relates to him, they may invite the pupil to sign the parental declaration as an indication that he acknowledges and accepts the school's expectations of its pupils.
	(8) The governing body shall discharge its duty under subsection (3)—
	(a) in the case of a pupil attending the school on the relevant date, as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable; and
	(b) in the case of a pupil admitted to the school, as soon after the date of his admission as is reasonably practicable.
	(9) The governing body shall from time to time review the home-school contract.
	(10) Where the home-school contract is revised by the governing body following such a review, subsections (3) to (8) shall, in the case of pupils admitted to the school after the revision takes effect, accordingly apply in relation to the revised contract.
	(11) Before adopting the home-school contract or parental declaration, or revising that contract, the governing body shall consult—
	(a) all qualifying parents, and
	(b) such other persons as may be prescribed.
	(12) In this section—
	'qualifying parent' means a registered parent of a pupil at the school who is of compulsory school age;'admission authority' has the meaning given by section 88(1).
	(13) Section 110 does not apply to a governing body that decides to have a home-school contract.
	111B Contents of home-school contracts
	(1) In discharging any function under section 111A the governing body of a school shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(2) If the Secretary of State by order so provides, the governing body of a school to which subsection (1) of that section applies shall ensure that any form of words—
	(a) specified in the order, or
	(b) having such effect as is so specified,
	is not used in a home-school contract or (as they case may be) in a parental declaration.
	(3) An order under subsection (2) may apply—
	(a) to any school specified in the order, or
	(b) to any description of school so specified.
	(4) A home-school contract shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.".'.
	New clause 72— Burden of proof in cases of confiscation—
	'(1) In any proceedings brought against a person in respect of his seizure or retention of an item in circumstances to which section 86 applies it shall be presumed that such seizure or retention was lawful unless the contrary is shown.
	(2) In any proceedings brought against a person in respect of his disposal of an item in circumstances to which section 86 applies it shall be presumed that the disposal of the item was lawful if the item could not reasonably be restored to its lawful owner or, if a pupil, to that pupil's parent or guardian without thereby facilitating the commission of an offence or of creating the possibility that further disciplinary action might need to be taken in relation to the pupil.'.
	Government amendment No. 58
	Amendment No. 100, in page 64, line 36 [Clause 81], after 'measures', insert
	'to ensure zero tolerance of disciplinary and behavioural problems'.
	Government amendments Nos. 59 to 65, 68 and 78

John Hayes: This group of new clauses and amendments deal with discipline in schools. If the objective of the Bill is to increase school autonomy, the Government should agree that a school must be completely in control of discipline. That is why the new clauses would make home-school contracts enforceable. If parents and children do not sign up to a code of behaviour, and stick to it, it would surely be inappropriate for those children to attend the school.
	My proposals are also in line with the Government's White Paper. It set a clear direction and that is why Opposition Members, who share the intent to drive up quality in our schools, have broadly supported the Government since it was published. We certainly support the Government in as much as they are determined to improve discipline in our schools for the benefit of children and teachers.
	The White Paper states:
	"Home-school agreements can be a powerful tool in making clear to parents what they can expect from their child's school particularly when they join a new school and also setting out parents' own responsibilities in supporting the school."
	It also states, in paragraph 5.14:
	"Home-school agreements have been a requirement since 1999, but many schools have not yet exploited their potential."
	As an example of home school agreements that work, the White Paper draws attention to Oulton Broad primary school in Suffolk. It says:
	"The home-school agreement is displayed in the school's entrance hall, and sets out clearly the expectation that both the school and the family will play their part in the child's education. The school consults parents about reviewing the agreement every three years, and it is used in day-to-day conversations, where necessary, with parents to clarify responsibilities, and emphasise the role that both sides play."
	That is so important in an age when people are prepared to bleat about their rights, but have little regard to their responsibilities, still less their duties.
	It is in a spirit of consensus and co-operation, and of wanting to improve discipline in schools, that we suggest these improvements to the Bill to enable the Government to achieve those objectives.

Sarah Teather: We discussed this matter in Committee, when it was noted that many people—such as those who cannot read and write, and those who do not speak English as a first language—would find it difficult to sign a home-school contract or agreement. Has the hon. Gentleman taken that into account in his new amendments?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady, and the whole House, will know that the protection of the vulnerable is always my top priority. I would not want to disadvantage any group of people who find it difficult to understand what is required of them, but I am sure that any good school or reasonable governing body would put in place measures to allow those who are illiterate or unable to speak fluent English to participate in the school's life. In that way, such people could understand and agree to their responsibilities in respect of pupils.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is right that we need to be sensitive about this matter and that it needs to be handed with appropriate care, but that is no reason to vote against the new clause. Given the spirit of consensus that has emerged in the course of consideration of the Bill, I hope that she will join us in fighting for good discipline in schools, and that she will support our teachers, and good teaching and learning.
	Good discipline is vital in school, but in a minority of schools and classrooms, discipline is in a state of crisis. Teachers and learners face real problems; it is estimated that 270 serious assaults are carried out on teachers every year. More than 60 children are suspended or expelled for violent behaviour every day in London schools, according to an investigation conducted in 2005 by the  Evening Standard—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) seems to make light of a problem that has such an effect on the life of schools, the progress of other learners and the morale of teachers. It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to stand by those whose lives are being made a misery by the small minority of people who are determined to disrupt good practice in our schools. The Government have recognised that, in the White Paper and in the Bill, and have introduced measures to give additional protection to schools.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East has also tabled important amendments in this group that deal with confiscation. She recognises that teachers should be able to confiscate items such as mobile phones, which can cause immense difficulty. More seriously, they should be able to confiscate objects that are weapons or could be used as weapons.
	It is sad that violence is on the increase in a minority of schools and classrooms, but we must not deny that most schools in this country do a great job. We should celebrate the work of our teachers accordingly, but it would be irresponsible of us not to deal with the real problems of violence and indiscipline that permeate too many schools.
	It is therefore vital that we enforce home-school contracts and link them to discipline and pupils' expectations. If pupils know what is expected of them and the conditions attached to their attendance as soon as they join a school community, there will be little doubt about their responsibilities should problems arise later on.
	Sir Alan Steer, the head teacher of Seven Kings high school in Ilford, was appointed by the Government to report on these matters. He said that schools should be "comfortable, warm, sociable places". To achieve that, we must get the right balance between discipline and security, so that students can enjoy the freedoms that they want, in the proper school atmosphere.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill deals adequately with the case not of sex offenders who might or might not be employed in schools, but of sex offenders who may be pupils? Will it protect other pupils from such offending pupils?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of educational affairs, on which he always speaks with great authority, and he is an immense champion of the interests of the people of the Isle of Wight. He is right to point out that offences such as he describes can not only disrupt the life of a school but ruin individual lives—they can be committed pupil against pupil as well as teacher against pupil. The new clause and this group of amendments do not deal with those specifics, and if I were to stray into them I have no doubt that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that when creating a disciplined environment in schools and setting out pupils' responsibilities and expectations such issues should be addressed. I have no doubt that in the Minister's expansive response to this short debate he will want to comment on that matter and to refer to some of the detailed measures that the Government propose for guidance in addressing it.
	Throughout our consideration of the Bill, the Opposition have done the right thing, because we believe that for the most part the Government have done the right thing. That is good, responsible opposition—but it is also responsible opposition to challenge the Government and to try to improve legislation when it comes before the House. In my judgment, and in the judgment of teachers, learners, parents and families throughout the country, the amendments would improve the Bill still further, and in that spirit I commend them to the House.

Sarah Teather: With an eye on the time, I shall simply say that I would like to take up further aspects of new clause 72 with the Minister in writing, because we were not happy with the answer he gave us in Committee. If the Conservatives push new clause 2 to a vote we shall oppose it. I shall now let the Minister respond, in the three minutes that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has left him.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) for indicating that she wants to take up new clause 72 in writing, which is what I wanted to do anyway.
	New clauses 2 and 10 would prevent a child from being admitted to a school if the parents were unable or unwilling to sign a home-school agreement. We agree that home-school agreements are an important tool in maintaining discipline and improving behaviour in schools, but we fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on the issue.
	In Committee, it was clear that Members making that proposal believed that if parents declined to sign a home-school agreement their child should be refused admission to a school. I cannot accept a provision that would penalise a child by refusing them access to a school because their parents had not signed a document stating that they agreed with its rules and ethos. It is much better for discussion about home-school agreements to take place after the offer of a school place has been accepted; whether a parent signs the agreement should have no bearing on the security of a child's place.
	I am also concerned that allowing some schools to make signing a home-school agreement compulsory could discourage some parents from applying to those schools. Such a scheme is best undertaken as part of the process of building a positive relationship between the school and family when parents know that their child will be attending the school in question. We have no wish to see home-school agreements used as another means whereby schools can select pupils, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that he thinks people should go to schools without agreeing to their rules and respecting their authority, because they are not prepared to sign up to the ethos of the school. That is nonsense, as he must know. He is sending the message that he does not really care about discipline as much as he pretends. That is not a good message and it is not one that teachers or learners will welcome. Parents up and down the country will be very disappointed with him.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman knows well, as will any Member who chooses to read the  Hansard report of the full arguments in Committee, how seriously the Government take discipline in schools. That is demonstrated by all the measures on discipline in the Bill, which will really move things forward so that every child in the country can have a secure experience of school. Those powers will liberate teachers to exercise discipline without having to resort to common law. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause—
	 It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 372.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 81
	 — 
	Determination By Head Teacher Of Behaviour Policy

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 64, line 36, leave out from 'measures,' to first 'to' in line 38.
	No. 59, in page 65, line 8, at end insert—
	'( ) The measures which the head teacher determines under subsection (1) must include the making of rules and provision for disciplinary penalties (as defined by section 82).'.
	No. 60, in page 65, line 10, after 'measures' insert 'to be'. —[Jim Knight.]

Clause 91
	 — 
	Parenting Contracts And Parenting Orders: Further Provisions

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 71, line 37, at end insert—
	'(3) In subsection (2), "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate person under subsection (1).'. . —[Jim Knight.]

Clause 95
	 — 
	Duty Of Parents In Relation To Excluded Pupil

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 74, line 5, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 6 and insert—
	'(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (3) to prove that he had a reasonable justification for his failure to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2).'. —[Jim Knight.]

Clause 100
	 — 
	Failure By Excluded Pupil To Attend Educational Provision On School Site

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 77, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'insert' in line 40 and insert—
	'(1) In section 444 of EA 1996 (offence of failing to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil), in subsection (1A), omit "without reasonable justification".
	(2) After that subsection insert—
	"(1B) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) to prove that he had a reasonable justification for his failure to cause the child to attend regularly at the school."
	(3) In subsection (2) of that section, for "(3)" substitute "(2A)".
	(4) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school at any time if the parent proves that at that time the child was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause."
	(5) In subsection (3) of that section—
	(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert "or", and
	(b) omit paragraph (b) and the "or" immediately following it.
	(6) In subsection (6) of that section, for "the parent shall be acquitted if he proves" substitute "it is a defence for the parent to prove".
	(7) In subsection (7) of that section, for "at a time when he was not" substitute "unless the parent proves that at that time the child was".
	(8) After that subsection'.
	No. 64, in page 78, line 24, at end insert—
	'(9) In subsection (6) of section 444ZA of EA 1996 (application of section 444 to alternative educational provision), for "the parent shall be acquitted if he proves" substitute "it is a defence for the parent to prove".
	(10) In section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37), in subsection (4) for the words from "unless" to the end substitute "unless the child or young person is prevented from attending by sickness or other unavoidable cause or the absence falls within subsection (3) (leave or day set apart for religious observance) of section 444 of the Education Act 1996".'.
	No. 65, in page 78, line 24, at end insert—
	'(11) The amendments made by this section, and the entry in Part 1 of Schedule 18 relating to section 444 of EA 1996, do not apply in relation to any failure to attend at a school, or other place in relation to which that section applies, which occurs before the commencement of the amendment in question.'.— [Jim Knight.]
	Further consideration adjourned.— [Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the three motions.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Insolvency

That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Disqualification from Office: General) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

International Development

That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved. —[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to petitions.  [Interruption.] Order. Will Members please leave quietly? We have other business to contend with. It does not help if everybody flocks out like a football crowd.  [Interruption.] Order. I mean it. Tonight let us go quietly, one by one if we can, rather than rushing out.

PETITIONS

Post Office Card Accounts

Hugo Swire: I present the petition of Councillor Christine Drew and Councillor Stuart Hughes and councillors and residents of the East Devon district council area.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners consider that the use of Post Office Card Accounts is a valuable means of keeping rural post offices and shops open. The Card Account is often the only way that pensioners can access their pension payments.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to drop plans to end Post Office Card Accounts.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Angela Browning: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and present a petition from Councillor Tony Wilkinson and councillors and residents of the East Devon district council area.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners consider that the use of Post Office Card Accounts is a valuable means of keeping rural post offices and shops open. The Card Account is often the only way that pensioners can access their pension payments.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to drop plans to end Post Office Card Accounts.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Oxford University (Student Rents)

Andrew Smith: I am pleased to present a petition signed by 2,000 students of Pembroke college and other colleges of Oxford university protesting at the impact of excessive rent rises.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the students of University of Oxford
	Sheweth That
	Accommodation costs in Oxford colleges have risen by 35 per cent. in the last five years, compared to a rise of 8.6 per cent. in London and 3.5 per cent. regionally.
	College accommodation in Oxford is the most expensive in England outside London and more expensive than Kings College London, University College London and the London School of Economics, all of whose students receive a student loan weighted for London living costs.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Department for Education and Skills to consider the plight of the students of the University of Oxford and others in a similar situation and henceforth allow students to live and work, free from the burden of unreasonable accommodation costs.
	And you Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	 To lie upon the Table.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Steve McCabe.]

Simon Hughes: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the dismissal of my constituent, Mr. James Beedell. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities; as it happens, this debate concerns an incident that occurred in the borough, part of which he represents and therefore knows well. I hope that I have been able to assist him by letting his office know the burden of my case in advance, which I hope will help him to give as constructive a reply as possible.
	Mr. James Beedell is a long-standing constituent of mine who has lived in Walworth in south London, which is just over the river, for a number of years. He first came to see me just less than two years ago about the circumstances of a previous dismissal from employment. Let me summarise my view on the matter before I go over the facts. It is my belief that in his particular case, the decision to dismiss him was harsh in light of the fact that he had worked for the same company for 28 years with an apparently impeccable record of service.
	Mr. Beedell is a man in his 50s who, after a 28-year period of service in the same company, is now unemployed. As a result of his dismissal, he is finding it difficult to obtain work. The dismissal, which he is aggrieved about and which has so far prevented him from finding a new job, stems from one single altercation with a colleague in the workplace in 1998. It was that row that led to Mr. Beedell's dismissal.
	Mr. Beedell had worked for that company, West Ferry Printers, since he joined in 1970 as a casual worker—eight years later, he became a permanent member of staff. The incident which led to his dismissal occurred on 29 September 1998 and involved him and a fellow employee, Mr. Radcliffe. In short, both men were reported for fighting in the workplace. They were reported by Mr. Fisher, the press hall manager, to the production director, Mr. Lawrence, and to the personnel manager, Mr. Marsden. Both men were then suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing.
	In the run-up to the disciplinary hearing, potential witnesses were interviewed, and the two men apparently gave differing accounts of the incident. On 2 October 1998, disciplinary hearings took place before Mr. Fairlie, the senior press hall manager. Based on the evidence of the two men, witnesses to the incident and reports from the company nurse and from Mr. Beedell's GP, Mr. Fairlie concluded that both men had been violent participants in the incident, and he summarily dismissed them both without notice.
	Mr. Beedell subsequently appealed internally against that decision to dismiss him from the company, particularly on the grounds that he had worked for them for 28 years with an impeccable record for all that time. His appeal was heard on 16 October 1998 by Mr. Marsden, but it was dismissed. My constituent then took his case to the London (South) employment tribunal, which on 14 December 1999 upheld the employer's decision to dismiss Mr Beedell. Mr Beedell then appealed that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 7 July 2000, and again his appeal was dismissed. He then took his case to the Court of Appeal in 2001, where his case was also dismissed. The final stage in the legal proceedings occurred on 20 June 2001, when the House of Lords refused his application for leave to appeal.
	When Mr. Beedell first contacted me as his constituency MP, I sought advice from an eminent lawyer, David Pannick QC, who is eminent not only in that area, but on matters connected with the European convention on human rights. His opinion was that the decision to dismiss Mr. Beedell after one altercation following 28 years of impeccable service to West Ferry Printers did seem "very harsh". However, following the decision of the Court of Appeal, David Pannick advised that there was no further legal remedy for Mr. Beedell. In May 2004, he advised me:
	"I can see no realistic prospect of the European Court of Human Rights finding that the law of unfair dismissal, as applied to Mr. Beedell, breaches any of his fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court would say that domestic law has a broad discretion to decide what standards of procedural and substantive fairness to apply in this context, and that Strasbourg does not provide an appeal on the merits of individual cases."
	Mr. Beedell has therefore exhausted all legal avenues to appeal or to remedy the decision, and that is why I bring the case before the House today for Government and Parliament to consider.
	Mr. Beedell's key grievance is that he feels that the current law is biased in favour of the employer, with, in cases like his, very unfair results. Under current law, disciplinary matters are of course dealt with first by the employer. After an initial decision, there would presumably in all circumstances be an internal right of appeal. If the employee was not satisfied with the outcome of that, he or she could then go to the employment tribunal. As the House knows, employment tribunals either dismiss the claim of unfair dismissal or uphold it. Most cases are dismissed, although the most recent Tribunals Service annual report that I have seen, which was published about a year and a half ago, shows that in 10 per cent. of cases that went to the employment tribunal in England and Wales in 2004-05, the employer was held to have unfairly dismissed the employee.
	After a finding of unfair dismissal, there are various remedies that the tribunal can give. Among those is the right to recommend re-engagement or reinstatement. The employment tribunal does not then have a power to substitute its own view of the fairness or unfairness of the decision to dismiss. But if it finds that the dismissal was unfair, although it cannot force the employer to re-engage or reinstate the employee, if that is what it holds should happen, the employer will be penalised financially if they do not follow the recommendation and the employee will be financially compensated. I understand why that is the case; it is to ensure that one does not end up putting an employer and employee back together in situations where they are not going to get on. According to the latest Tribunals Service annual report for 2004-05, re-engagement or reinstatement in a case of unfair dismissal was very rarely the decision of the tribunal. Only 0.4 per cent. of cases—one in every 250—led to reinstatement.
	Mr Beedell argues that the figures show how difficult it is, first, for an employee to win a case against the employer; and secondly, even if the employee wins, for him to get his job back. That is the important aspect that I want the Minister to address specifically, because the rest is can be seen as the normal situation in all unfair dismissal cases. One of the key reasons why Mr. Beedell and people like him understandably feel that they have a bad deal in employment law is that tribunals are governed by the "reasonable response" test. In accordance with section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—which is still the governing piece of legislation—the question of the fairness of the dismissal, first, depends on whether in the circumstances, including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking, the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and, secondly, shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
	That may sound fine on the face of it, but it does not always work out that way. The test means that for a dismissal to be lawful, an employer's decision to dismiss an employee must fall within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in all circumstances. That in turn means that a given set of circumstances may result in one employer deciding to dismiss and another employer, in the same or similar circumstances but equally reasonably, deciding not to dismiss.
	In addition, the law provides that, when considering whether a dismissal is "fair" or "unfair", and when determining whether an employee's conduct justifies dismissal, an employment tribunal cannot substitute its view for that of the employer about what is "reasonable", provided that the employer's decision was within a band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
	Several decisions by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and other cases have been reported, but I shall cite only one case. Mr. Haddon took his employers, Van den Bergh Foods, to the tribunal and the case was decided on 29 September 1999. In it, the Employment Appeal Tribunal sought to reformulate the test of reasonableness. The key elements of the case were simple. Mr. Haddon had received a long-service award at a presentation that started at 5.30 pm with a buffet supper afterwards. He failed to clear with his manager that he would not need to return to the evening shift after the presentation, although employees were not normally required to do so. A disciplinary hearing took place and Mr. Haddon was dismissed for failing to return to work after the presentation. The employment tribunal decided that the dismissal was fair because it was not outside the "band of reasonable responses" open to the employer. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal—rightly, in my view—decided that the dismissal was unfair.
	According to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the test of reasonableness is objective—that is, the tribunal must ask itself what a reasonable employer would have done; the "band of reasonable responses" test is not helpful as there are bound to be extreme views at either end of the band, and all tribunals must consider whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee in all the circumstances.
	The Haddon case, which dated from 1999, became one of the cases that has been used regularly in tribunals till now and governed the decisions of the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in Mr. Beedell's case as part of the case law that interprets the Act that Parliament passed. In Mr Beedell's case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that
	"the law on dismissal for a reason which related to conduct was not altered by the recent cases of Haddon  v. Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, Wilson  v. Ethicon (2000) or Madden  v. Midland Bank Plc (2000)".
	The latter two are the other most often cited cases.
	As a result of the current law and its interpretation in the cases since we passed it, West Ferry Printers has been held not to have acted unfairly in dismissing Mr Beedell and to have had no duty to reinstate him. There is no argument in law about that. The last decision in Mr Beedell's case in the law courts was five years ago.
	What next? I hope that I can persuade the Minister to see that there may be some scope for putting right an injustice. I understand that there are no recent Government or parliamentary proposals to change the basic legal framework or to adjust the balance between employer and employee interests in the way in which the framework currently works. There has been a new employment Act—the Employment Act 2002—which sets out new statutory and disciplinary grievance procedures. It was generally accepted and welcomed in all quarters of the House and it came into force in 2004. It ensures that internal procedures are better than they were. However, none of those changes appear specifically to tackle the balance of fairness in cases of alleged unfair dismissal.
	Given that that law did not change anything, on behalf of especially James Beedell, and others who might be in a similar position in future, I come to Parliament today to ask four central questions. First, is any further general review of employment legislation envisaged? Is there any plan to reconsider the test or the practice for determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair, rather than continuing with the law and the case law that is currently used?
	Secondly, what options are available to Mr Beedell and people like him, who find themselves in the position of being dismissed, after an employer decision which is, at the very least, extremely harsh, and, the employee and others would argue, disproportionate and personally unfair?
	Thirdly, if the decision in Mr. Beedell's case cannot be changed, and if re-engagement or reinstatement are not an option, how can Mr. Beedell—or anyone in his position—ensure that his long and excellent work record is not discounted or ignored in his search for subsequent employment as a result of the one incident that led to his dismissal?
	Fourthly—this is perhaps the big question—is there not a way in which natural justice could be included as an overriding principle, or as a backstop, in the way in which we evaluate such cases? This could allow people like Mr. Beedell who make what might objectively be considered to be a serious mistake once, but who are then punished for it for the rest of their working life, to have the slate wiped clean.
	Mr. Beedell is keen to get back into gainful employment, but the clock is ticking as he moves through his 50s, and so far this has not proved possible. The principal reason for this is that he might first be seen in the eyes of any potential employer as someone who was dismissed for fighting with a fellow employee, rather than as someone who gave committed, loyal, professional, diligent and unblemished service to his employer for 28 years.
	Mr. Beedell feels that he has had a raw deal. Although I understand his former employer's decision, I agree with Mr. Beedell. How would our new Minister and his Department suggest that this case, and that of others in a similar situation to that of Mr. Beedell, be remedied, so that those affected might be treated better by the law of the land?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to comment on some of the general issues surrounding the unfair dismissal legislation. I am advised in my brief that he has been campaigning on behalf of his constituent for some years, and I commend that activity. I regret to tell him, however, that I shall be unable to give him any satisfaction in my response this evening. He said that his office had contacted mine, but I am advised that we received no such communication. I hope that he will forgive me, therefore, given the specific nature of his questions, if I write to him about them rather than dealing with them in an ad hoc fashion. I know from the briefings that I have been getting over the past two weeks that I shall be able to give him better information if I write to him, and I undertake to do so after the end of tonight's business.
	I must stress, however, that the general issues that I shall be discussing will address many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. While I of course understand that his constituent was disappointed with the outcome of his own unfair dismissal claim, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on decisions made by the employment tribunal, or by the Appeal Courts, which are independent judicial bodies.
	It might be helpful if I start by setting out how the legislation works. Protection against unfair dismissal has now been in force for more than 30 years. The fundamental tenets of the legislation have always been, first, that an employer must have a potentially fair reason for dismissing an employee. It could be a reason relating to the employee's conduct or to his or her capability or qualifications. It could be that the employee was redundant or that there was a legal reason preventing his or her continued employment—the classic example is a driver who loses his or her driving licence. Or there could be some other substantial reason to justify the dismissal.
	If an employee believes that he or she has been dismissed unfairly, they can complain to an employment tribunal, subject to the necessary qualifying service. At the tribunal, it must first be shown that the individual was in fact dismissed. The employer must then show that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason. If he or she can do so, the employment tribunal will consider whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in dismissing the employee for that reason.
	The concept of acting reasonably is crucial to the unfair dismissal legislation. Understandably, case law has developed over the decades that helps the employment tribunals to decide what is reasonable in particular circumstances. For instance, if a dismissal relates to an employee's capability, a tribunal will expect the employer to have appraised the employee's performance properly and identified the root of the problem. The employer must not only do that, but warn the employee of the consequences of failing to improve and give him or her a reasonable chance to do so. That is acting reasonably; dismissing a poor performer when he or she first turns in poor work is not. Case law also guides tribunals in considering dismissals related to an employee's conduct. In that regard, the employer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the employee was guilty of the conduct that caused the dismissal. He or she must have carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances.
	The courts have developed another important test to assist tribunal decision making, which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised specifically and with which he took issue. It is known as the band of reasonable responses test, or sometimes as the range of reasonable responses test. Essentially, it requires tribunals to consider whether an employer's action in dismissing an employee fell within the range of responses to a given situation which might have been expected of a hypothetical reasonable employer in the same circumstances. If it did, the dismissal would be fair.
	The test has important and, I believe, desirable effects. It reduces the risk of inconsistent decision making from one employment tribunal to another. It acknowledges that more than one response to a given set of circumstances might be reasonable. For instance, two employers might be more or less lenient, according to the culture of their workplaces and the standards of conduct that they explicitly require of their employees, towards the same act of misconduct. It also underlines the principle that employment tribunals should avoid subjective decisions. To put it bluntly, tribunal members are not there to say, "We would not have sacked that employee, therefore it is an unfair dismissal," or, "We'd have sacked him or her, too, so it is fair." They must not seek to substitute their view for that of the employer. They must judge cases objectively in the light of all the circumstances.
	The development of the test over many years has not been without its difficulties and inconsistencies, at least as tribunals have at times purported to apply it. That has led to criticism, which has been twofold. The first criticism has been that the test is a perversity test, or what amounts to one—that it compels tribunals to find that any decision to dismiss is reasonable as long as it is not so unreasonable as to be perverse. The second has been that the test prevents employment tribunals, which are sometimes described as "industrial juries", from drawing on their own workplace experience in deciding whether a dismissal is fair.
	If those criticisms ever held water, however, they no longer do so. Later case law has made it clear that the band of reasonable responses test is not a perversity test—the relevant cases are the 2001 Court of Appeal case, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of Post Office  v. Foley, and the case of Midland Bank plc  v. Madden. Case law has also made it clear that it is not an error of law for tribunals to refrain from applying the band of reasonable responses test at all. There will be cases in which the employer's conduct is so clearly reasonable or unreasonable that that there is no range of responses to consider. It has also emphasised that the test does not preclude tribunals from applying their industrial experience to the facts of a case. They can do so, and should do so, in deciding how a hypothetical reasonable employer might have responded when presented with the same facts.
	None of that will assuage the disappointment of employees and/or employers who lose unfair dismissal cases, as one or the other must fail in every case. Their disappointment is natural, and it is perhaps also natural that in some cases it will promote a belief that the law must be loaded against one side or the other. The law is about balance, however, and it would clearly be unworkable to allow employers no discretion at all in dismissing employees. Since they must have some discretion, the question is how much. What is the proper balance between protecting employees from unfair treatment and enabling employers to run their businesses without undue constraint? I realise that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that the current legislation and the band of reasonable responses test get the balance right. At the moment, we have no plans to override that, but as I said, I shall write to him about where we are with employment legislation.
	That said, we are not complacent about employment law. We have made significant changes since 1997. For instance, for a long time the period of service that most employees must accrue before they qualify to make an unfair dismissal claim stood at two years. Some employers claimed that a substantial qualifying period was necessary so that they could rectify recruitment mistakes without the risk of facing a tribunal claim. We accept that recruitment mistakes do happen, but we believed that two years was longer than employers needed to discover and deal with them. In 1999, therefore, we reduced the qualifying period to one year, thus protecting more employees against the risk of arbitrary dismissal.
	I could go on to describe in detail the new disputes resolution procedures that we introduced via the Employment Act 2002, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We hoped that they would help to improve protection for employers and employees against having to have recourse to employment tribunals, and we believe that they have done so. Time is against me, however. I said at the outset that I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to be satisfied with my comments, and I have probably lived up to that expectation, but I have undertaken to write to him in response to the specific questions that are now recorded in  Hansard, and I shall ensure that my office deals with that as expeditiously as possible.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.